THE    GREAT    FRENCH    WRITERS 


MONTESQUIEU 


@reat  jFremj)  Outers 


MONTESQUIEU 


BY  ALBERT,  SOREL 


TRANSLATED  BY 

MELVILLE     B.    ANDERSON 

AND 

EDWARD    PLAYFAIR    ANDERSON 


CHICAGO 

A.  C>ICCLURG  AND  COMPANY 
^         1888 


COPYRIGHT 
BY  A.  C.  MCCLURG  AND  COMPANY 

A.  D.    1888 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER   I. 

PAGB 

CHARACTER  OF  MONTESQUIEU 7 

CHAPTER   II. 
THE  "  PERSIAN  LETTERS  " 30 

CHAPTER   III. 

SOCIETY 48 

"THE  TEMPLE  OF  GNIDOS  " 51 

THE  ACADEMY 55 

TRAVELS 57 

CHAPTER  IV. 

"  CONSIDERATIONS    ON    THE    CAUSES    OF    THE 

GREATNESS  AND  DECLINE  OF  THE  ROMANS  "      63 
"  DIALOGUE  OF  SULLA  AND  EUCRATES  "...      73 

CHAPTER   V. 

PLAN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  "THE  SPIRIT  OF 

THE  LAWS  " 80 

CHAPTER  VI. 

"  THE  SPIRIT  OF  THE  LAWS  " 108 

POLITICAL  LAWS  AND  GOVERNMENTS   ....    109 


2234809 


vi  Contents. 

CHAPTER  VII. 

PACK 

"THE  SPIRIT  OF  THE  LAWS" 139 

CLIMATE  AND  LAWS 141 

CIVIL  LAWS 143 

INTERNATIONAL  LAW 145 

ECONOMIC  LAWS 149 

THE  THEORY  OF  FEUDAL  LAWS 155 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

CRITICISM  AND  DEFENCE  OF  "THE  SPIRIT  OF 

THE  LAWS  " 162 

MONTESQUIEU'S  LAST  YEARS 169 

His  INFLUENCE  IN  EUROPE  UNDER  THE  OLD 

REGIME 171 

His  VIEWS  ON  FRENCH  GOVERNMENT  ....  1 75 

CHAPTER  IX. 
MONTESQUIEU  AND  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION      179 

CHAPTER  X. 

MONTESQUIEU'S  FOLLOWERS  IN  POLITICS  AND 

HISTORY 193 

MONTESQUIEU  AND  CRITICISM 203 


INDEX    ....  .    .         211 


MONTESQUIEU 


CHAPTER   I. 

HIS     CHARACTER. 

HT^HE  "Persian  Letters"  appeared  in  1721, 
and  created  a  wonderful  sensation. 
Never  has  a  writer  better  caught  the  secret 
spirit  of  his  age,  nor  has  any  revealed  with  a 
defter  or  an  airier  touch  longings  hitherto  un- 
spoken and  thoughts  hitherto  confused.  The 
author  saw  decaying  around  him  social  insti- 
tutions many  centuries  old.  The  beliefs,  the 
manners,  and  the  customs  by  which  the  mon- 
archy in  France  had  been  formed  and  sup- 
ported were  crumbling  to  ruin.  Montesquieu 
wished  to  diagnose  this  disease,  and  tried  to 
cure  it.  He  was  not  aware  that  by  describing 
it  as  he  did  he  spread  the  contagion,  and  that 
his  work  was  the  gravest  symptom  of  the  crisis 
which  he  wished  to  avert.  Far  from  being  an 
appeal  and  a  warning  to  reform,  it  was  the  sig- 


8  Montesquieu. 

nal  for  a  revolution,  the  presentiment  of  which 
was  present  in  all  hearts,  and  its  causes  appar- 
ent in  every  event.  The  "  Persian  Letters  " 
contain  the  germs  of  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws." 
Montesquieu  was  thirty- two  years  old  when  he 
published  these  letters.  His  birth,  education, 
and  early  mental  development  belong  to  the 
seventeenth  century.  The  life  and  writings  of 
no  man  better  explain  how  a  democratic  revo- 
lution, unexpected  even  by  those  who  paved 
the  way  for  it,  came  to  succeed  that  reign  of 
Louis  XIV.  which  seemed  to  have  established 
the  institution  of  monarchy  in  France  upon 
imperishable  foundations.  Let  us,  then,  con- 
sider what  Montesquieu  was  at  the  period  when 
he  composed  his  first  work,  and  let  us  try  to 
define  the  character  of  his  genius  before  in- 
quiring how  that  genius  was  revealed. 

The  family  of  Montesquieu  belonged  to  the 
genuine  nobility,  both  of  the  sword  and  of  the 
gown.  It  had  accepted  the  reformed  doctrine 
in  its  time,  and,  with  Henry  IV.,  had  abjured 
it.  Jacques  de  Secondat,  second  son  of  the 
Baron  de  Montesquieu,  Chief-Justice  of  the 
court  of  Guyenne,  married  in  1686  Franchise 
de  Penel,  who  brought  him  the  estate  and  the 
castle  of  La  Brede,  near  Bordeaux.  It  was 
here  that  Charles  Louis,  the  future  author  of 
"  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws,"  was  born,  as  the 


His  Character.  9 

fruit  of  this  marriage,  on  the  i8th  of  January, 
1689.  His  father  had  an  aristocratic  severity 
like  that  of  Vauban  and  Catinat;  his  mother 
was  a  pious  woman ;  both  were  nobles  of  the 
kind  who  class  themselves  with  the  people,  and 
who  are  impelled  by  Christian  sentiment  as 
well  as  by  virtue  of  their  rank  to  seek  popu- 
larity. At  the  moment  when  Charles  Louis 
was  born,  a  beggar  presented  himself  at  the 
castle  gate,  and  the  Secondats  kept  him  to 
be  godfather  to  the  child,  "that  such  a  god- 
father might  remind  him  all  his  life  long  that 
the  poor  are  his  brethren."  Thus  Montaigne's 
father,  the  fellow-countryman  of  the  father  of 
Montesquieu,  had  done  in  days  of  yore. 

Charles  Louis  bore  at  first  the  name  of  La 
Brede,  from  the  estate  he  inherited.  He  passed 
three  years  at  nurse  among  the  peasants,  thus 
strengthening  his  constitution  and  learning  to 
speak  the  patois.  He  returned  to  his  parents 
at  the  Castle  of  La  Brede,  with  which  his  mem- 
ory is  still  connected.  It  is  a  great  thirteenth- 
century  manor-house  in  the  form  of  a  castle- 
keep,  a  massive  battlemented  structure,  its 
dark  walls  irregularly  pierced  with  windows, 
and  rising  from  the  edge  of  a  broad  moat  filled 
with  water,  over  which  you  cross  by  a  draw- 
bridge. Here  Charles  Louis  lived  until  he  was 
seven ;  then  he  lost  his  mother,  and  was  sent 


io  Montesquieu. 

to  live  with  the  Oratorian  Brethren  at  Juilly, 
where  he  remained  from  1700  to  171 1.1 

This  education,  apart  from  family  intercourse, 
was  not  suited  to  develop  in  him  a  very  tender 
heart,  and  he  was  not  inclined  that  way,  being 
of  a  cheerful  disposition,  thoughtful,  but  not  at 
all  melancholy.  It  would  seem  that  this  eccle- 
siastical training  ought  to  have  made  him  a  be- 
liever, or  at  least  have  disposed  him  to  religious 
ideas.  His  mother  had  inspired  him  with  re- 
spect for  the  Christian  religion ;  but  the  edu- 
cation that  he  received,  so  wholly  literary, 
classical,  and  Roman,  prepared  him  through 
indifference  for  incredulity.  At  the  age  of 
twenty  he  composed  an  essay  to  prove  that 
the  heathen  philosophers  did  not  deserve 
eternal  damnation.  The  groundwork  of  Stoi- 
cism, which  he  retained  all  his  life,  and  which 
was  always  his  chief  philosophical  depend- 
ence, came  to  him  directly  from  his  Latin 
studies.  He  supplemented  this,  as  soon  as  he 
had  control  of  his  own  reading,  with  a  very 
strong  dose  of  Pyrrhonism,  traditions  of  which 
were  preserved  in  the  Temple  Club ;  and  in 
spite  of  the  Sorbonne,  the  censorship,  and 

1  This  sentence  implies  something  that  the  dates  contra- 
dict. Young  La  Brede  appears  not  to  have  been  sent  to  the 
Oratorian  school  until  some  four  years  after  his  mother's 
death.  —  TR. 


His  Character.  1 1 

the  police,  this   scepticism  became    generally 
known. 

La  Brede  studied  law,  and  was  admitted  to 
the  parliament  of  Bordeaux  in  1714,  with  the 
title  of  counsellor.  The  following  year  he 
married  Mademoiselle  Jeanne  de  Lartigue,  who 
was  of  a  military  family  and  of  Calvinistic 
extraction.  This  lady  was  more  candid  than 
beautiful,  more  timid  than  winning,  more  vir- 
tuous than  agreeable.  She  presented  him  with 
a  son,  and  subsequently  with  two  daughters. 
The  son  was  born  in  1716,  and  in  the  same 
year  La  Brede  became  Chief-Justice.  His 
father's  elder  brother,  who  had  held  that  office, 
bequeathed  it  to  La  Brede,  with  all  his  prop- 
erty, on  condition  that  La  Brede  should  take 
the  name  of  Montesquieu.  Never  was  a  legacy 
better  bestowed,  at  least  as  to  the  name,  — 
for  as  to  the  office,  Montesquieu  showed  little 
taste  for  it.  Neither  the  family  nor  the  court 
occupied  a  very  important  place  in  his  life ; 
he  spoke  of  both  with  respect,  he  behaved 
in  both  with  propriety,  but  he  forgot  their 
existence  as  much  as  possible.  He  freed 
himself  from  their  trammels  as  soon  as  he 
thought  he  was  in  a  position  to  do  so.  He 
was  fond  of  society  and  of  pleasure,  and  this 
fondness  drew  him  away  from  home ;  he  took 
no  interest  in  lawsuits,  and  detested  the  legal 


12  Montesquieu. 

profession,  regarding  barristers  with  scorn  and 
solicitors  with  contempt.  He  did  not  think 
himself  an  orator,  and  did  not  find  himself 
suited  to  formal  speech-making,  nor  even  to 
the  ostentatious  reports  which  were  the  pecul- 
iar pride  of  the  bench.  His  mind  found  its 
highest  activity  in  the  satisfaction  of  its  alert 
curiosity  and  in  the  delights  of  reflection.  He 
found  his  best  food  in  the  society  of  Bordeaux, 
in  which  his  birth  and  his  position  gave  him  a 
foremost  place. 

"  This  profession  of  the  law,  holding  an  in- 
termediate position  between  the  high  nobility 
and  the  people,"  opened  the  widest  field  to 
the  political  observer.  It  formed  the  centre  of 
cultivated  society  in  the  provinces.  Bordeaux 
was  one  of  the  cities  in  which  intellectual  cul- 
ture seemed  most  highly  honored.  An  acad- 
emy had  been  established  there  "  to  polish  and 
perfect  the  admirable  talents  that  Nature  be- 
stows so  liberally  upon  men  born  in  this  clime," 
as  the  founder  of  the  society  expresses  it.  To 
this  academy  Montesquieu  was  admitted  almost 
as  a  matter  of  course,  and  he  at  once  plunged 
into  scientific  studies. 

Owing  to  the  impulse  given  by  Newton,  the 
observation  and  study  of  Nature  was  becoming 
free  from  confused  compilation  and  legend. 
Montesquieu,  who  had  written  an  essay  on 


His  Character.  13 

"  The  Policy  of  the  Romans  in  Religious  Mat- 
ters," and  another  on  "  The  System  of  Ideas," 
devoted  himself  for  some  time  to  anatomy, 
botany,  and  physics.  He  studied  the  kidneys, 
the  causes  of  the  echo,  and  of  transparency  in 
bodies.  But  the  constant  weakness  of  his  eye- 
sight rendered  experiments  difficult  for  him, 
while  the  constant  impatience  of  his  mind  ren- 
dered them  unprofitable  and  laborious.  He 
was  not  capable  of  that  minute  attention  which 
forms  a  part  of  the  genius  for  scientific  dis- 
covery, and  which,  in  Goethe,  was  combined 
with  the  creative  imagination.  Montesquieu 
rushed  at  once  to  his  conclusions ;  he  was 
eager  to  paint  on  a  grand  scale  and  with 
dashing  strokes.  He  conceived,  before  Buf- 
fon,  the  idea  of  a  "  Physical  History  of  the 
Earth,  Ancient  and  Modern."  In  1719  he 
addressed  circulars  to  all  the  learned  world, 
asking  for  observations.  In  the  course  of  this 
reconnaissance  of  the  world's  past,  he  redis- 
covered men  and  humanity,  and  paused  to 
consider  them.  This  was  the  subject  for 
which  his  genius  destined  him ;  he  was  drawn 
to  it  by  a  natural  inclination,  and  became 
wedded  to  it  forever.  But  after  these  incur- 
sions upon  scientific  territory,  and  his  brief 
period  of  laboratory  practice,  he  retained  a 
conception  of  science,  a  method  of  work,  and 


14  Montesquieu. 

a  bias  toward  experiment,  which  reveal  them- 
selves in  his  works  on  politics  and  history. 

Such  was  his  mental  training.  Allowing  for 
slight  differences  in  intensity,  he  was  at  thirty 
what  he  remained  till  the  end.  There  are  few 
writers  who  have  exercised  so  much  influence 
on  their  age,  and  yet  have  had  so  little  to  do 
with  the  affairs  of  that  age.  The  private  life 
of  Montesquieu  has  no  interest;  it  throws  no 
light  whatever  on  his  works.  He  was  a  gentle- 
man and  a  thinker.  He  would  have  deemed 
inquiries  about  his  person  intrusive,  just  as  he 
would  have  considered  it  intrusive  to  trouble 
himself  about  the  person  of  another.  He 
wished  to  be  known  only  through  his  works ; 
and  except  through  his  works  it  would,  in- 
deed, hardly  be  possible  for  us  to  form  any 
idea  of  his  life  and  of  his  sentiments. 

He  was  of  medium  height,  thin  and  sinewy, 
his  face  long,  refined,  with  a  very  marked 
profile,  —  the  profile  for  a  medallion, —  a  large 
nose,  a  small  mouth  mocking  and  sensuous, 
the  forehead  slightly  receding,  the  eyes  wide 
open,  and,  though  early  weakened  and  prema- 
turely veiled,  full  of  fire,  full  of  genius,  eager 
for  light.  "  It  is  with  a  kind  of  rapture,"  said 
he,  "  that  I  behold  the  light."  It  is  a  good 
French  face,  with  strongly  marked  Gascon  fea- 
tures ;  in  him  the  two  natures  are  blended. 


His  Character.  15 

The  Gascon  element  formed  the  original 
groundwork  of  Montesquieu's  character,  and 
determined  his  disposition.  He  retained  not 
only  the  Gascon  accent,  which  he  affected, 
but  the  ways,  —  the  gasconade,  in  the  good 
sense  of  the  term,  —  making  it  a  point  of  honor 
to  be  witty.  His  conversation  was  full  of  sal- 
lies, surprises,  and  irregular  flights.  His  style 
retains  much  of  this  conversational  manner; 
it  is  marked  by  rather  abrupt  transitions,  mul- 
tiplied digressions,  outbursts  of  familiar  elo- 
quence, gleams  of  playfulness  and  raillery,  — 
in  a  word,  by  the  freedom  of  informal  chat, 
—  and,  owing  to  an  overcrowded  memory  and 
an  excess  of  animation,  by  an  abandonment  to 
impulse  sometimes  bordering  upon  license. 

Montesquieu  was  fond  of  Montaigne;  he 
placed  him  among  the  great  poets,  he  de- 
lighted in  him,  he  fed  upon  him,  and  at 
intervals  seems  Montaigne  himself  alive  again. 
He  has,  like  him,  an  insatiable  curiosity,  and 
that  thirst  for  knowledge  which  is  the  un- 
changing youth  of  the  mind :  "  I  pass  my 
life  in  investigation ;  .  .  .  everything  arouses 
interest  and  wonder.  I  am  like  a  child  whose 
organs,  still  sensitive,  are  deeply  affected  by 
the  most  insignificant  objects."  Filled  with 
a  passion  for  reading,  he  travels  about  his 
library;  there  he  makes  his  excursions,  there 


1 6  Montesquieu. 

he  follows  the  chase,  there  he  seeks  his  booty ; 
he  scribbles  his  books  full  of  notes.  By  thus 
scouring  the  woods  his  mind  is  constantly  in- 
vigorated and  fertilized.  He  is  delighted  with 
significant  anecdotes,  with  traits  characteristic 
of  a  man  or  of  a  country,  or  even  with  little 
stories  serving  only  to  amuse  and  merely  illus- 
trating the  perennial  folly  or  good-nature  of 
man.  These  he  collects  and  retains,  and  when- 
ever the  occasion  is  at  all  inviting  he  can- 
not resist  the  pleasure  of  relating  them.  Many 
odd  sayings,  strange  assertions  and  quotations, 
surprising  us  even  in  the  most  serious  chapters 
of  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws,"  proceed  from  no 
other  source  than  this  Gascon  humor.  Mon- 
tesquieu cites,  in  connection  with  the  laws 
"  providing  for  political  liberty  in  its  consti- 
tutional relations,"  Arribas,  King  of  Epirus, 
and  the  laws  of  the  Molossians.  What  is  the 
use  of  Arribas  and  the  Molossians  here?  asks 
a  critic.  Their  use  is  to  show  that  the  author 
has  read  Montaigne  and  is  from  the  same 
country. 

But  he  is,  at  the  same  time,  French,  in- 
tensely French,  a  serious  and  contemplative 
Frenchman.  Montaigne  scattered  his  thoughts  ; 
Montesquieu  felt  the  need  of  connected  think- 
ing; he  eagerly  desired  order,  method,  con- 
tinuity. In  all  his  cases  he  must  have  counsel, 


His  Character.  17 

testimony,  chains  of  causes.  The  most  won- 
derful collection  of  rarities  is  not  enough  for 
him.  He  was  not  contented  with  showing 
amateurs  through  his  museum,  and  slyly  en- 
joying their  amazement  at  the  variety  of  forms 
and  the  endless  succession  of  contrasts.  He 
wished  to  explain  to  himself  and  to  others  this 
marvellous  diversity  in  Nature,  to  discover  laws 
amid  apparently  conflicting  facts,  and  to  sur- 
prise by  harmonizing  instead  of  contrasting. 
"  Man's  mind  is  made  for  thought,  that  is,  for 
perception ;  now,  such  a  being  must  have  curi- 
osity; for  as  all  things  are  linked  together  in 
a  chain  in  which  each  idea  has  one  before  it 
and  one  after  it,  we  cannot  enjoy  the  sight  of 
one  thing  without  desiring  to  see  another." 
This  is  the  curiosity  of  the  scholar  and 
historian. 

This  curiosity  implies  an  entire  indepen- 
dence of  judgment,  and  this  Montesquieu 
always  possessed.  His  mind  is  one  of  the 
most  unprejudiced,  one  of  the  freest,  imagina- 
ble. But  if  he  never  had  the  prejudices  of 
superstition,  he  did  have  at  one  time  those  of 
unbelief.  Under  the  influence  of  the  reaction 
that  took  place  in  the  days  of  his  youth 
against  the  orthodoxy  of  the  latter  years  of 
Louis  XIV.,  he  showed  himself  a  freethinker, 
pushing  freedom  of  thought  to  irreverence, 


1 8  Montesquieu. 

and  independence  of  belief  to  hostility.  He 
did  not  continue  to  entertain  such  views.  His 
very  contemplation  of  the  order  existing  in 
Nature  and  in  ideas  tended  to  banish  scep- 
ticism. His  profound  study  of  social  insti- 
tutions led  him  to  have  respect  for  religious 
beliefs.  But,  as  Sainte-Beuve  has  remarked,  in 
his  very  homage  "  to  the  elevation  and  ideali- 
zation of  human  nature  "  he  always  remained 
eminently  a  politician  and  a  historian.  He 
understood  and  accepted  the  ideas  of  justice 
and  religion  from  the  practical  and  positive 
side  rather  than  in  their  "  virtual  and  essential 
selves."  He  had  no  aptitude  for  metaphysics. 
First  causes  seeming  to  him  beyond  our  ken,  he 
did  not  try  to  find  them,  and  rested  content 
with  secondary  causes,  —  those  whose  effects 
reach  our  senses  and  are  objects  of  expe- 
rience. His  scrutiny  was  limited  to  this  world, 
and  did  not  extend  beyond  humanity.  As  to 
things  that  are  beyond  history  and  beyond 
this  world,  he  relied  upon  his  sense  of  life  and 
consciousness.  He  rested,  as  a  last  resort,  in 
those  sublime  commonplaces  of  human  hope, 
which,  even  in  their  mystery,  still  seemed  to 
him  the  most  satisfactory  solution  that  men 
had  found  to  the  problem  of  their  destiny. 

"What  avails  all  this  philosophizing?     God 
is  so  high  that  we  do  not  perceive  even  His 


His  Character.  19 

shadow.  We  know  Him  in  fact  only  in  His 
precepts."  These  precepts  are  written  within 
us ;  and  the  social  instinct  develops  them  in 
proportion  as  it  leads  us  to  form  the  social 
state.  "  Even  were  there  no  God,  we  ought 
always  to  love  justice;  that  is,  endeavor  to 
resemble  the  being  of  whom  we  have  such  a 
sublime  conception,  and  who,  if  He  existed, 
would  be  forever  just.  However  free  we  might 
be  from  the  yoke  of  religion,  we  ought  not  to 
be  free  from  that  of  equity."  "  Even  if  the 
immortality  of  the  soul  were  an  error,  I  should 
be  loath  to  disbelieve  in  it.  I  acknowledge  that 
I  am  not  so  humble  as  the  atheists.  I  do  not 
know  how  they  think  of  it,  but  for  my  part  I 
am  not  willing  to  barter  the  idea  of  immortal- 
ity for  that  of  transient  bliss.  I  am  delighted 
with  the  thought  that  I  am  immortal  as  God 
himself.  Independently  of  revelation,  meta- 
physical arguments  give  me  a  very  strong 
hope  of  eternal  blessedness,  and  this  hope  I 
should  not  be  willing  to  renounce." 

Practically  he  almost  closes  with  the  wager 
of  Pascal,1  not  out  of  agony  of  heart  and  de- 
spair of  reason,  but  out  of  prudence,  out  of 

1  Pascal  ("  Thoughts," iii.  i)  says,  "Not  to  wager  that  God 
exists,  is  equivalent  to  wagering  that  He  does  not  exist." 
See  the  remainder  of  the  passage,  and  Voltaire's  note  upon 
it,  in  which  he  taxes  Pascal  with  irreverence.  —  TR. 


2O  Montesquieu. 

contempt  for  the  hypotheses  of  schoolmen  and 
for  dogmatic  systems;  above  all,  out  of  his 
conscientiousness  as  a  law-giver,  out  of  his 
good  sense  as  a  citizen,  out  of  his  perception 
of  the  needs  of  society,  out  of  regard  for 
human-kind.  His  natural  inclination  drew 
him  toward  the  ancients,  toward  Marcus 
Aurelius  and  the  Antonines,  whom  he  calls 
"  Nature's  greatest  work."  "  Born  for  society, 
they  believed  that  their  destiny  was  to  labor 
for  it."  In  all  his  works  we  find  this  spirit  of 
Stoicism,  improved  by  French  urbanity  and 
tempered  with  modern  humane  feeling. 

I  do  not  mean  charity.  Montesquieu,  hav- 
ing never  succeeded  in  quite  understanding 
the  part  of  Christianity  in  civilization,  appears 
to  have  remained  unaffected  by  this  Christian 
sentiment.  He  was  kind,  and  he  showed  him- 
self generous.  He  said  :  "  I  have  never  seen 
any  one's  tears  flow  without  being  touched  by 
them  ;  I  feel  compassion  for  the  wretched,  as  if 
they  alone  were  men."  But  he  dreaded  to  let 
it  appear.  He  considered  "  that  a  noble  ac- 
tion is  one  that  shows  kindness,  and  requires 
effort  for  its  performance,"  and  he  pushed 
such  effort  to  the  point  where  it  becomes  af- 
fectation. His  scorn  of  sham  sensibility  took 
the  form  of  coldness.  He  carried  so  far  his 
fear  of  appearing  the  dupe  of  his  feelings,  and 


His  Character.  21 

of  seeming  vain  of  his  good  deeds,  as  to  de- 
prive himself  of  gratitude. 

Some  stiffness  and  much  bashfulness  com- 
plicated this  constraint.  "  Bashfulness  has 
been  the  scourge  of  my  life."  He  confesses 
that  he  suffered  with  it  most  of  all  before 
blockheads.  We  should  imagine  that  he 
suffered  with  it  sometimes  in  the  presence 
of  women.  He  was  long  their  lover,  and 
some  of  them  loved  him  in  return.  As  a 
lover  he  was  passionless,  imperturbable,  un- 
romantic,  but  sprightly  and  witty,  more  eager 
for  amusement  than  for  affection,  more  super- 
ficial in  love  than  in  study,  but  exhibiting 
here  the  same  curiosity  and  much  more  self- 
indulgence.  If  he  had  passions,  they  dis- 
turbed him  little ;  if  he  had  disappointments, 
he  was  soon  consoled ;  if  he  often  yielded  to 
impulse,  he  never  gave  himself  completely 
up.  "  I  was  in  my  young  days  so  fortunate 
as  to  form  attachments  for  women  who,  I 
thought,  loved  me ;  as  soon  as  I  ceased  to 
believe  this,  I  promptly  broke  with  them." 
There  was  in  him  something  of  the  libertine. 
This  must  here  be  acknowledged,  because  a 
trace  of  it  —  at  once  the  stamp  and  the  stain 
of  his  time  —  remains  in  his  works.  We 
should  not  know  Montesquieu  if  we  did  not  see 
him,  at  least  in  passing  and  by  stealth,  as  the 


2  2  Montesquieu. 

wit  of  the  boudoir,  the  gay  magistrate  rival- 
ling Judge  Renault  and  Judge  De  Brosses 
in  stolen  gallantries. 

"  The  society  of  women,"  he  has  somewhere 
said,  "depraves  our  morals  and  forms  our 
taste."  We  could  reverse  the  statement  with 
regard  to  the  women  whom  he  knew.  His 
moral  sense  was  not  blunted  in  their  society, 
and  his  taste  was  depraved.  It  was  to  please 
them  that  he  composed  certain  opuscules 
which  disfigure  his  works,  and  that  he  sowed 
his  finest  chapters  with  licentious  witticisms 
which  spoil  them.  This  is  what  induced  the 
fashionable  world  of  those  days  to  read  his 
books,  and  is  what  would  probably  repel  the 
fashionable  world  of  to-day.  It  is  not  that 
society  is  now  less  frivolous  in  its  thoughts  or 
more  fastidious  in  its  morality ;  but  the  fashion 
has  changed,  and  fashion,  in  this  matter  and 
in  this  atmosphere,  is  the  most  intolerant  of 
censors.  Licentiousness,  musk-scented  and  full 
of  cant  in  Fontenelle,  ironical  and  prudent  in 
Montesquieu,  degrading  and  cynical  in  Vol- 
taire, lustful  in  Rousseau,  loose  and  wanton 
in  Diderot,  became  magniloquent  with  Cha- 
teaubriand, theatrical  with  the  romantic  school, 
pedantic,  pathological,  and  dismal  with  the 
school  that  has  followed.  This  school,  with 
its  gibberish  from  the  hysterical  hospital,  is 


His  Character.  23 

far  removed  from  the  tone  of  sportive  gal- 
lantry into  which  Montesquieu  is  fond  of  re- 
laxing. Our  recent  literature  reeks  with  a 
gross  vapor  that  would  have  nauseated  the 
contemporaries  of  Montesquieu ;  worse  yet,  it 
would  have  bored  them,  —  and  to  do  this  was 
in  those  days  the  worst  of  offences. 

This  is  an  offence  which  Montesquieu  never 
commits;  for  though  he  jests  in  these  inter- 
ludes, he  does  not  keep  always  at  it,  and  is 
too  wise  to  confound  the  design  of  the  vig- 
nette with  the  subject  of  the  chapter.  He 
trifles  just  as  he  lugs  in  curious  learning,  from 
versatility,  and  with  the  freakishness  of  Gascon 
humor;  but  the  thinker  soon  brings  back  the 
truant  to  the  high-road.  The  philosopher 
always  has  the  last  word. 

He  attached  much  importance  to  the  dignity 
of  his  name.  This  liberal  nobleman  was 
very  proud  of  his  birth  and  of  his  descent 
from  a  race  of  conquerors.  "  Our  ancestors, 
the  Germans,  warlike  and  free,"  is  a  thought 
which  often  recurs,  under  many  forms,  in  his 
writings.  This  thought  lurks  in  his  heart,  and 
is  the  expression  of  an  inborn  prejudice  which 
he  nurses,  and  which,  far  from  criticising,  he 
tries  to  confirm  by  his  reading.  He  is  wont 
to  say  complacently,  "  my  domain,"  "  my 
vassals."  The  dry  subject  of  fiefs,  which  was 


24  Montesquieu. 

distasteful  and  baffling  to  his  contemporaries, 
has  for  him  all  the  personal  attractiveness  of 
genealogy. 

But  the  feudal  lord  was  combined  in  him 
with  the  magistrate;  and  if  he  had  no  liking 
for  his  duties,  he  did  have  a  passionate  sense 
of  the  prerogatives  of  his  class.  As  he  had  a 
classical  training,  he  carried  into  his  demands 
for  the  feudal  liberties  a  sort  of  haughty  re- 
publican spirit  derived  directly  from  Rome. 
"  I  have  had  a  distant  view,  in  the  books  of 
Plutarch,  of  what  great  men  were."  From  this 
intercourse  with  the  ancients  he  acquired  that 
impulse  toward  great  actions,  that  fortitude  of 
soul,  that  worship  of  the  political  virtues,  the 
tradition  of  which  was  becoming  extinct  in  the 
France  of  his  day,  and  which  he  contributed 
in  no  small  degree  to  restore.  He  hated  the 
sneering  spirit,  and  liked  to  admire  heartily. 
He  composed  pen-portraits  of  great  national 
characters,  "  of  those  rare  men  who  would 
have  been  acknowledged  by  the  Romans,"  of 
those  of  whom  it  could  be  said,  as  of  Turenne, 
that  their  existence  "  was  a  hymn  of  praise  to 
humanity."  His  noblest  pages  are  portraits  of 
the  founders  of  empires. 

He  is  before  all,  and  above  all,  a  citizen.  "  Is 
it  not  a  noble  aim  to  endeavor  to  leave  men 
after  us  happier  than  we  have  been?"  "I 


His  Character.  25 

naturally  loved  the  well-being  and  the  honor 
of  my  country.  ...  I  have  always  felt  a  secret 
joy  when  any  law  was  made  which  conduced 
to  the  common  welfare."  He  sought  this 
common  welfare ;  he  would  have  delighted  in 
laboring  for  it ;  it  would  have  been  his  glory ; 
and  we  can  see  that  he  once  coveted  this  glory. 
The  court  disdained  him.  He  was  wounded 
by  it.  Bitter  and  abiding  resentment  betrayed 
itself  in  passages  which,  both  in  thought  and 
expression,  remind  one  of  La  Bruyere.  "  At 
first  I  had  in  most  cases  a  puerile  dread  of 
the  great;  as  soon  as  I  had  found  them  out,  I 
began  almost  immediately  to  despise  them.  .  .  . 
I  was  wont  to  say  to  a  man,  Fie !  fie !  your 
sentiments  are  as  low  as  those  of  a  man  of 
quality." 

He  must  have  suffered  all  the  more  from 
this  rude  rebuff  at  Versailles,  because  he  was 
really  modest.  All  pretension  to  superiority 
offended  him.  "  Authors  strut  like  the  dra- 
matis persona;  of  the  stage."  He  had  no  con- 
ception of  hatred,  which  seemed  to  him  a 
painful  thing:  "  Wherever  I  find  envy,  I  take 
pleasure  in  badgering  it."  He  threw  off  re- 
serve only  among  intimates,  "  in  houses  where 
he  could  get  along  with  his  every-day  wit." 
This  wit  was  amazingly  prompt,  nimble,  spark- 
ling. His  friends  were  charmed  and  dazzled 


26  Montesquieu. 

by  it.  His  mere  acquaintances,  whom  he 
treated  with  indifference,  and  who  heard  only 
the  echo  of  his  conversation,  reproached  him 
with  being  chary  of  his  wit  in  their  company. 
He  was  often  content  to  keep  his  thoughts  to 
himself,  seeming  to  agree  with  bores  in  order 
not  to  have  to  hear  them,  or,  worst  of  all,  to 
contradict  them.  Thus  escaping  discussion, 
he  went  on  making  observations  from  his  own 
high  standpoint,  and  "  composing  his  book  in 
society,"  as  was  remarked,  not  without  irrita- 
tion, by  a  great  lady  in  whose  company  he  is 
said  to  have  been  too  reflective. 

Though  the  best  of  friends, — the  most  amia- 
ble and  the  most  beloved,  —  he  knew  how  to 
accommodate  himself  to  retirement,  and  even 
sought  it  when  his  vocation  as  a  thinker  made 
him  feel  the  need  of  it.  He  had  a  contented 
disposition,  regular  health,  ability  to  think 
clearly  with  promptness  and  continuity,  and 
the  power  to  bury  himself  endlessly  in  his 
studies.  "  I  have  never  had  a  vexation  which 
an  hour's  reading  has  not  dissipated.  ...  If 
people  only  wanted  to  be  happy  it  would  be 
very  easy ;  but  they  want  to  be  happier  than 
other  people,  and  this  is  almost  always  diffi- 
cult, because  we  imagine  other  people  happier 
than  they  really  are."  He  showed  prudence, 
too  much  prudence  indeed,  in  those  matters 


His  Character.  27 

of  the  imagination  and  of  the  heart  which  ad- 
mit so  little  of  it.  Kind  and  humane  without 
being  susceptible,  he  never  pushed  any  attach- 
ment so  far  as  to  cloud  his  mind  or  break  his 
heart.  There  is  always  the  same  groundwork  of 
Stoicism  concealed,  and,  as  it  were,  sprinkled 
with  the  salt  of  Gascon  levity.  Plants  spring- 
ing from  such  soil  are  gorged  with  sap  and 
produce  wonderfully  juicy  fruit,  but  they  de- 
velop no  verdure  and  they  give  no  shade. 

Montesquieu  would  have  been  profound  and 
brilliant  indeed,  but  unattractive,  had  not  the 
observer,  the  scholar,  and  the  thinker,  each 
been  coupled  in  him  with  the  artist.  He  not 
only  has  the  political  opinions  of  antiquity, 
he  has  its  estimate  of  poetry.  "  These  ancient 
times  enchant  me,  and  I  am  always  ready  to 
say  with  Pliny,  '  It  is  to  Athens  that  you  are 
bound ;  revere  its  gods.'  "  He  enjoys  "  that 
cheerful  air  diffused  through  all  mythology." 
He  calls  "  Telemaque  "  "  the  most  exquisite 
work  of  this  age."  With  the  single  exception 
of  "  Manon  Lescaut,"  which  he  could  not  have 
read  before  mature  years,  and  which  he  must 
have  enjoyed,  the  novels  of  his  time  were  so 
long-drawn-out,  and  so  deficient  in  imagina- 
tion and  style,  that  they  repelled  him  from  im- 
aginative literature ;  while  the  dull,  cold,  and 
mechanical  versification  of  his  contemporaries 


28  Montesquieu. 

repelled  him  from  their  poetry.  He  found 
his  poetry  only  in  Montaigne  and  in  the  an- 
cients. Moreover,  as  he  prides  himself  upon 
writing  like  a  gentleman  and  not  like  a  gram- 
marian, he  dashes  down  his  thought,  just  as  it 
occurs  to  him,  in  metaphors  and  sallies  of  wit; 
but  he  returns  to  it  often,  spending  a  long  time 
on  it.  He  revises,  erases,  corrects ;  he  writes, 
in  short,  as  an  author  who  has  a  reason  for  his 
taste,  and  a  definite  style.  "  What  usually 
characterizes  a  great  thought  is,  that  it  states 
an  idea  that  brings  to  mind  a  great  many 
others,  and  enables  us  to  discover  at  one 
stroke  what  we  could  only  hope  for  after 
protracted  reading." 

Thus  Montesquieu  appears  to  us  about  1720, 
in  the  maturity  of  his  powers.  A  wonderful 
moderation  of  heart,  of  mind,  and  of  character, 
reigned  in  him  and  offset  some  qualities  by 
other  very  different  ones  which  Nature  very 
rarely  combines  in  the  same  man.  These 
qualities  do  not  comprehend  all  of  French 
genius,  but  they  do  comprehend  all  of  French 
reason  and  wit.  We  have  had  sublimer  philoso- 
phers, bolder  thinkers,  more  eloquent  writers, 
sadder,  more  pathetic,  and  more  fertile  crea- 
tors of  fictitious  characters,  and  authors  richer 
in  the  invention  of  images.  We  have  had  no 
more  judicious  observer  of  human  societies, 


His  Character.  29 

no  wiser  counsellor  regarding  great  public 
interests,  no  man  who  has  united  so  acute  a 
perception  of  individual  passions  with  such 
profound  penetration  into  political  institutions, 
—  no  one,  in  short,  who  has  employed  such 
rare  literary  talent  in  the  service  of  such  per- 
fect good-sense. 

"  My  mind,"  said  Montesquieu,  "is  a  mould  ; 
the  same  set  of  portraits  is  always  obtained 
from  it."  These  portraits  had  their  prepara- 
tory studies  and  sketches,  and  many  originals 
have  sat  for  the  great  historic  figures  making 
up  Montesquieu's  portrait-gallery.  Let  us 
take  a  look  at  the  first  models  who  presented 
themselves  to  him,  and  whom  he  proposed  to 
depict.  They  are  the  men  and  the  events  of 
the  Regency.  No  society  has  been  more  will- 
ing to  display  itself  nakedly,  none  has  chal- 
lenged satire  with  more  effrontery. 


CHAPTER   II 

THE   "  PERSIAN   LETTERS." 

LOUIS  XIV.  had  just  departed.  His  de- 
clining years  resembled  a  gloomy  and 
majestic  sunset.  Contemporaries  did  not  stop 
to  admire  the  twilight  of  a  great  reign ;  they 
were  glad  to  be  set  free.  No  one  regretted 
the  king;  he  had  too  strictly  imposed  on  all 
Frenchmen  "  that  dependence  which  subjected 
all."  "  The  provinces,"  says  Saint-Simon, 
"  rallying  from  despair  at  their  ruin  and  anni- 
hilation, breathed  free  and  trembled  for  joy. 
The  higher  courts  and  the  whole  magisterial 
caste  had  been  reduced  to  insignificance  by 
edicts  and  appeals ;  now  the  former  hoped  to 
make  a  figure,  the  latter  to  be  exempt  from 
royal  intermeddling.  The  people,  ruined, 
crushed,  and  desperate,  thanked  Heaven  with 
scandalous  openness  for  a  deliverance  touch- 
ing the  reality  of  which  their  eagerness  ad- 
mitted no  doubts."  In  the  society  in  which 
Montesquieu  lived,  among  the  wits  and  free- 
thinkers, there  was  none  who,  like  the  common 


The  "Persian  Letters"  31 

people,  thought  of  thanking  Heaven.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  so-called  liberty  which  arose 
removed  all  checks  from  a  freethinking  ten- 
dency which  passed  beyond  all  bounds. 

This  freedom  of  thought  had  never  disap- 
peared. The  tradition  of  it  descended,  "  di- 
rect and  uninterrupted,"  from  the  Renaissance 
to  the  Fronde,  and  from  the  Fronde  to  the 
Regency,  through  Retz,  Saint- fivremond,  Ven- 
dome,  Bayle, — the  epicureans  and  the  sceptics. 
"  The  reign  of  Louis  XIV.  is  honeycombed  by 
it."  This  prince  and  his  councillors  of  state 
thought  they  did  wonders  by  suppressing  dis- 
senters. Huguenots,  Jansenists,  all  those  who 
professed  to  believe  according  to  their  own 
consciences  and  the  grace  they  received  from 
Heaven,  were  persecuted,  proscribed,  annihi- 
lated. But  infidelity  remained,  and,  cher- 
ished in  the  depths  of  the  heart,  became  the 
most  fearful  adversary  that  the  Church  had 
faced  since  the  days  of  Leo  X. ;  for  it  was 
quiet,  self-possessed,  imperturbable  as  the 
spirit  of  the  age.  Infidels  carried  into  their 
denial  the  magisterial  fulness  and  certainty  of 
a  Bossuet  in  his  faith.  "  The  great  heresy  of 
society,"  wrote  Nicole,  "  is  no  longer  Calvin- 
ism or  Lutheranism ;  it  is  atheism." 

The  Reformation  and  Jansenism,  both  pro- 
ceeding from  the  Christian  spirit,  had  been 


32  Montesquieu. 

crushed ;  and  thus  the  way  was  best  opened 
for  the  spirit  of  the  Renaissance,  which  was 
that  of  pagan  antiquity.  The  king  had  revived 
Olympian  morals,  an  example  more  efficacious 
than  all  the  edicts  in  the  world.  The  political 
creed  derived  by  Bossuet  from  Holy  Writ 
could  not  prevail  over  the  moral  code  derived 
by  Louis  XIV.  from  mythology.  The  king, 
grown  old,  converted  and  devout,  found  no 
remedy  for  this  except  penitence ;  but  how- 
ever sincere  his  own  penitence  might  be,  he 
succeeded  in  forcing  upon  his  subjects  only 
hypocrisy.  Dissoluteness  went  masked,  or 
kept  within  doors. 

The  Regency  freed  it  from  every  restraint. 
The  display  of  vice  succeeded  the  show  of 
devotion;  the  rivals  of  Don  Juan  occupied 
on  the  front  of  the  stage  the  place  recently 
held  by  the  rivals  of  Tartuffe.  Everything 
was  called  in  question,  discussed,  unsettled. 
The  imposition  of  the  bull  Unigcnitus  upon 
the  clergy  passionately  excited  all  believers; 
the  intestinal  broils  of  the  Church  opened  a 
breach  for  freethinkers.  Dubois  debauched 
politics ;  Law,  the  finances  of  the  state.  There 
had  been  gambling-hells  only  for  the  nobil- 
ity and  gentry;  henceforth  the  people  have 
them.  And  yet  no  one  suspected  that  this 
inundation  of  ideas  and  passions  would  wash 


The  "Persian  Letters."  33 

away  the  old  foundations  in  France.  The  new 
reign  inspired  boundless  hopes;  all  rash 
schemes  became  possible  because  none  of 
them  seemed  formidable. 

Thus  thought  Montesquieu,  as  he  was  hur- 
ried along  by  these  movements  of  the  age.  A 
nobleman  and  a  magistrate,  sly  and  critical, 
but  magnanimous  withal,  an  ardent  reformer, 
and  one  who  confided  in  illusions,  eager  for 
fame,  anxious  to  please,  dreaming  that  he 
would  enlighten  his  countrymen  and  shine  in 
the  world  of  fashion,  smitten,  moreover,  "  with 
that  mania  for  writing  books "  which  deter- 
mined his  calling,  yet  at  the  same  time 
careful  of  his  person,  scrupulous  about  the 
proprieties  of  his  rank,  without  love  for  scan- 
dal and  still  less  for  the  rack,  he  sought  a  veil 
for  his  ideas  so  flexible  and  so  discreet  that 
his  work  might  stimulate  inquiring  minds 
without  offending  the  official  wariness  of  the 
censors.  He  supposes  that  two  Persians,  one 
of  whom,  Rica,  is  the  more  lively  and  satirical, 
while  Usbek,  the  other,  is  the  more  meditative 
and  reflective,  come  to  visit  Europe.  They 
exchange  impressions,  inform  their  Persian 
friends  about  the  affairs  of  Europe,  and  are 
informed  by  them  about  those  of  Persia.  The 
plot  was  not  entirely  new.  It  is  of  little  con- 
sequence to  know  whether  Montesquieu  bor- 
3 


34  Montesquieu* 

rowed  it  from  Dufresny.  Montesquieu  was 
capable  of  inventing  it;  at  all  events,  he  has 
made  it  his  own.  His  idea  of  Persia  he  got 
from  Chardin.  He  was  fond  of  reading  this 
traveller's  pleasant  stories;  he  derived  from 
them  his  theory  of  despotism  and  his  theory 
of  climates ;  they  suggested  the  species  of 
romance  which  he  inserted  in  the  "  Persian 
Letters,"  and  the  personal  details  about  his 
characters.  This  is  the  most  questionable 
part  of  his  book.  It  was  then  quite  the  fash- 
ion, but  is  now  wholly  out  of  date. 

Montesquieu  enjoyed  the  "  Arabian  Nights," 
and  might  have  found  in  them  all  the  elements 
necessary  to  form  an  agreeable  imitation  of  the 
Oriental  tale.  He  did  not  think  of  it.  His 
romance  recalls  the  younger  Crebillon's  writ- 
ings, though  it  has  less  of  licentious  grace,  and 
Hamilton's  tales,  though  it  has  less  of  ease  and 
of  pleasing  improbability.  There  is  in  these 
ticklish  stories  an  effort  at  exact  portrayal  en- 
tirely uncalled  for,  and  consequently  offensive 
enough.  If  Montesquieu  had  confined  himself 
to  reproducing  the  details  of  Persian  manners 
collected  by  Chardin,  such  details  would  pass, 
in  case  of  need,  for  local  color.  But  he  did 
nothing  of  the  kind.  Montesquieu  embel- 
lished the  traveller's  picture  and  arranged  it  to 
suit  the  fancy  of  the  dissolute  judge.  Chardin 


The" Persian  Letters"  35 

says  somewhere,  "  Modesty  forbids  me  even 
to  recall  what  I  have  heard  on  such  a  sub- 
ject." Montesquieu  has  imagined  more  than 
he  has  heard,  and  has  described  it  without 
regard  to  propriety.  All  the  paraphernalia 
of  a  harem  more  Gascon  than  Persian,  and  a 
system  of  polygamy  more  European  than 
Oriental,  are  displayed  in  a  travestied,  tar- 
nished, antiquated  picture  which  vexes  and 
chills  us. 

Montesquieu  not  only  makes  Chardin's  pic- 
ture licentious,  he  makes  it  tragical.  His 
Persians  have  a  gloomy  and  restless  jealousy. 
"  Wretched  man  that  I  am !  "  exclaims  Usbek ; 
"  I  long  to  see  again  my  native  land,  perhaps 
only  to  become  more  wretched  still.  Alas ! 
what  should  I  do  there?  .  .  .  entering  my 
seraglio,  I  must  demand  an  account  of  the  try- 
ing time  of  my  absence  .  .  .  what  if  punish- 
ments which  I  shall  myself  impose  must  be 
lasting  tokens  of  my  disgrace  and  of  my 
despair?"  He  speaks  with  a  sinister  tone 
of  those  "  fatal  doors  opening  only  for  him." 
Those  who  guard  them  are  not  the  "  old 
slaves,  odd  and  deformed,"  observed  by  Char- 
din;  they  are  the  grandiloquent  victims  of  a 
fatal  destiny.  There  is  in  them  something 
resembling  a  posthumous  Abailard  and  an 
anticipated  Triboulet.  These  eunuchs,  as  it 


36  Montesquieu. 

appears,  were  very  learned,  and  acted  as  tu- 
tors to  Persians  of  quality.  One  of  them 
must  have  come  as  far  as  Valais  and  have 
taken  charge  of  the  education  of  Saint- 
Preux.1 

These  are  the  weak  points  of  the  work ;  they 
partly  explain  its  success.  This  fashion  has 
gone  out;  ours,  too,  will  go  out.  Let  us  fix 
our  attention  upon  what  is  abiding.  And  first 
the  style,  which  is  wonderfully  nervous,  brief, 
suggestive,  above  all  precise;  it  is,  moreover, 
temperate,  and  of  admirable  propriety  in  its 
turns  of  phrase ;  it  is  livelier,  easier,  bolder  in 
movement  than  that  of  Saint-Evremond ;  less 
strained  and  less  elaborate  than  that  of  La 
Bruyere.  Montesquieu  does  not  seek  orna- 
ments and  figures  of  rhetoric  as  he  will  later 
on,  when  he  treats  of  drier  subjects,  since  he 
thinks,  and  rightly  thinks,  that  the  variety  of 
the  thought  is  here  enough  for  the  amusement 
of  the  reader.  Here  the  pure  current  of  French 
wit  flows  over  a  bed  rather  stony,  it  is  true ; 
but  what  limpidity  in  its  waters,  what  joy, 
what  grace  and  light  in  its  ripples  and  its 
little  cascades !  This  is  the  stream  which 
is  to  pass  on  to  Voltaire  and  Beaumarchais ; 
Stendhal  and  Merimee,  in  our  time,  are  to 

1  The  selfish,  grandiloquent  hero   of  Rousseau's   "  New 
Heloisa."  — TR. 


The  "Persian  Letters"'  37 

receive  it  and  turn  it  toward  us,  but  with  a 
more  restrained  flow,  over  a  drier  and  more 
tortuous  bed. 

Pictures  of  character  and  manners  abound 
in  the  "  Persian  Letters."  Montesquieu,  who 
afterward  shows  such  a  sagacious  knowledge 
of  man  in  his  social  relations,  shows  in  these 
letters  the  penetrating  and  ironical  observation 
of  the  man  of  the  world.  Tradition  will  have 
it  that  in  Usbek  he  portrayed  himself.  Usbek 
reasons  much  about  affairs  and  pries  much  into 
causes ;  he  preaches  divorce,  thinks  highly  of 
suicide,  praises  the  Stoics ;  but  he  is  very  rest- 
less in  love,  very  melancholy  in  his  jealousy, 
and  fiercely  gloomy  when  satiated  with  pleas- 
ure. This  could  never  be  the  true  picture  of 
a  Gascon  quite  fancy-free,  who  formed  attach- 
ments with  sprightliness,  broke  them  off  with- 
out bitterness,  and  had  no  trouble  that  could 
hold  out  against  a  page  of  Plutarch  or  Mon- 
taigne. Rica  resembles  Montesquieu  at  least 
as  much,  but  is  in  reality  only  the  same  per- 
son as  Usbek  in  another  guise.  These  two 
Persians  are  twin  brothers.  Usbek  holds  the 
pen  when  Montesquieu  preaches  morality  to 
his  contemporaries ;  Rica  takes  it  when  Mon- 
tesquieu satirizes  them.  And  how  delicate 
his  satire ! 

His   gallery  of  fools  is  equal  to  the  most 


38  Montesquieu. 

celebrated  collections  of  the  kind.  Here  is 
the  great  lord,  "the  man  of  all  the  kingdom 
who  best  maintains  the  dignity  of  his  station, 
taking  snuff  so  loftily,  blowing  his  nose  so 
remorselessly,  spitting  so  unconcernedly,  ca- 
ressing his  dog  so  odiously,"  that  we  cannot 
weary  of  admiring  him.  Here  is  the  director 
of  consciences,  here  the  literary  snob,  more 
willing  to  endure  a  sound  drubbing  than  the 
criticism  of  his  works ;  here  is  the  oracle  fur- 
nishing the  subject  of  one  of  the  liveliest 
sketches  in  the  work :  — 

"  I  happened  the  other  day  into  a  company 
where  I  saw  a  man  very  well  satisfied  with 
himself.  In  fifteen  minutes  he  decided  three 
questions  in  morals,  four  historical  problems, 
and  five  points  in  physical  science.  I  never 
saw  so  universal  an  oracle ;  his  mind  was 
never  troubled  by  the  slightest  doubt.  We 
left  the  sciences  and  spoke  of  the  news  of  the 
day,  —  he  was  an  oracle  on  the  news  of  the 
day.  I  wished  to  catch  him,  and  said  to  my- 
self, '  I  must  take  refuge  in  my  stronghold  and 
have  recourse  to  my  country.'  I  spoke  to  him 
of  Persia;  but  scarcely  had  I  spoken  four  words 
when  he  gave  me  twice  the  lie,  relying  on  the 
authority  of  Messrs.  Tavernier  and  Chardin. 
'Ah!  good  Heavens,'  said  I  to  myself,  'what 
a  man  this  is !  Before  long  he  will  be  better 


The  "  Persian  Letters."  39 

acquainted  with  the  streets  of  Ispahan  than  I 
am  myself.'  I  soon  made  up  my  mind  to  keep 
silence  and  let  him  talk ;  and  he  still  plays  the 
oracle." 

Montesquieu's  Persians  are  severe  upon 
women ;  I  mean  upon  such  as  Montesquieu 
associated  with  in  the  society  where  he  amused 
himself,  and  whose  weaknesses  he  had  per- 
haps himself  observed.  He  accuses  them  of 
devoting  themselves  to  gaming  in  order  to 
"  facilitate  a  dearer  passion  "  while  they  are  still 
young,  and  to  supply  the  loss  of  this  passion 
when  they  feel  themselves  growing  old.  He 
was  to  say  later  on,  and  more  bluntly,  "  Every 
man  makes  use  of  their  charms  and  of  their 
passions  to  advance  his  fortunes."  He  is  im- 
placable toward  men  who  arrive  at  prominence 
by  this  road.  He  withers  with  his  scorn  those 
bullies  of  the  closet,  the  prototypes  of  Love- 
lace and  Valmont,  who  openly  run  a  depraved 
career  and  insolently  boast  of  their  profligacy: 
"  What  do  you  think  of  a  country  where  such 
people  are  tolerated,  and  where  a  man  who 
plies  such  a  trade  is  allowed  to  live ;  where 
infidelity,  treachery,  abduction,  perfidy,  and 
injustice  lead  to  consideration?"  The  man 
now  speaking  is  no  longer  the  frivolous  world- 
ling; he  is  the  noble  and  the  magistrate,  and 
his  language  reminds  us  of  the  speech  of  Don 


40  Montesquieu. 

Louis  to  Don  Juan,  and  the  majestic  remon- 
strance of  the  father  of  the  "  Menteur."  1 

It  is  this  same  spirit,  much  more  nearly 
allied  to  Saint-Simon  than  to  Voltaire,  which 
is  caught  sight  of  in  his  continual  satire  of  the 
king,  the  court,  and  the  great.  Montesquieu 
denounces  Louis  XIV.,  whom  he  saw  in  his 
decrepitude,  when,  infatuated  with  his  own 
reign  and  flattered  by  his  officials,  he  coveted 
the  simplicity  of  the  Grand  Turk's  govern- 
ment. He  allows  to  Louis  only  the  outward 
form  of  justice,  public  policy,  and  devotion, — 
only  the  semblance  of  a  great  king.  Unjust 
to  the  master,  he  is  not  less  so  to  his  servants. 
I  find  in  La  Bruyere  himself  no  more  severe 
touch  than  the  following:  "The  class  of 
lackeys  is  more  respectable  in  France  than 
anywhere  else;  it  is  a  nursery  for  great  lords; 
from  it  the  gaps  in  the  other  classes  are  filled. 
The  men  composing  it  take  the  place  of  the 
unfortunate  great,  of  ruined  magistrates,  of 
noblemen  killed  in  furious  wars ;  and  when 
the  lackeys  cannot  fill  the  void  themselves, 
they  exalt  all  the  great  houses  by  means  of 
their  daughters,  who  are,  as  it  were,  a  kind  of 
fertilizer  for  the  barren  uplands." 

1  "  Le  Menteur"  (The  Liar),  Corneille's  famous  comedy. 
Don  Louis  is  the  father  of  Don  Juan  in  Moliere's  tragi- 
comedy "  Don  Juan."  The  speech  referred  to  is  in  the 
fourth  scene  of  Act  iv.  —  TR. 


The  "Persian  Letters-'  41 

Montesquieu  shows  us  the  monarch  a  despot, 
his  ministers  without  a  system,  his  government 
precarious,  his  high  courts  in  desuetude,  family 
ties  relaxed,  the  ruin  of  the  higher  orders,  the 
jealousy  of  the  privileged  classes,  —  all  the 
signs,  in  fact,  of  the  approaching  dissolution 
of  the  social  system.  What  a  contrast  between 
Versailles,  where  "all  is  little,"  and  Paris, 
where  "  all  is  great ;  "  where  reign  "  liberty 
and  equality,"  the  "  eagerness  for  labor,"  econ- 
omy ;  where  "  the  passion  for  growing  rich 
is  passed  along  from  rank  to  rank,  from  the 
artisans  to  the  great " !  This  rivalry  cannot 
arise  without  a  substratum  of  envy;  neverthe- 
less, it  is  one  of  the  causes  of  the  fermenting 
activity  of  the  nation.  "  Even  to  the  lowest 
day-laborers  they  dispute  about  the  excellence 
of  the  calling  they  have  chosen ;  each  one 
exalts  himself  above  him  who  is  of  a  different 
occupation,  in  proportion  to  the  conception 
that  he  has  formed  of  the  superiority  of  his 
own  calling."  And  this  Paris  is  only  the  mir- 
ror of  the  nation.  Nothing  is  seen  in  France 
but  "  labor  and  industry."  "  Where,  then," 
writes  Usbek  to  his  friend,  "  is  this  effeminate 
race  of  whom  you  talk  so  much?" 

These  are  Frenchmen,  at  once  eager  for 
wealth  and  passionately  fond  of  equality. 
Montesquieu  did  not  perceive  in  them  the 


42  Montesquieu. 

elements  of  a  democracy  which  was  forming 
undefr  the  shadow  of  the  throne,  destined  to 
develop  a  totally  different  character  from  that 
of  the  ancient  democracies.  French  of  the 
French,  he  will  always  remain  content  with 
the  Roman  liberty  and  the  political  virtue  of 
Lycurgus.  By  effective  contrasts  and  by 
satirical  illustrations  he  opposed  the  republic 
to  the  monarchy;  but  his  was  the  ancient 
republic ;  he  dreamed  of  no  other.  As  soon 
as  he  touches  upon  this  great  subject  he  is 
lost  in  revery,  and  we  see  forming  the  strange 
ties  which  connect  this  reformer  of  the  old 
regime  with  the  apostles  of  the  Revolution. 
"  Monarchy,"  says  Usbek,  "  is  an  abnormal 
condition  which  always  degenerates  into  des- 
potism. .  .  .  The  sanctuary  of  honor,  reputa- 
tion, and  virtue,  seems  to  be  established  in 
republics  and  in  countries  where  each  can  say 
my  country." 

"  I  have  often  heard  you  say,"  wrote  one  of 
his  friends  to  Usbek,  "  that  men  were  born  to 
be  virtuous,  and  that  justice  is  a  quality  which 
is  as  much  their  own  as  existence.  Explain 
to  me,  I  pray  you,  what  you  mean."  Mon- 
tesquieu did  not  explain  it  very  clearly.  This 
question  of  the  origin  and  basis  of  right  always 
embarrassed  him,  and  made  him  wandering 
and  obscure.  For  lack  of  a  better  way  he  gets 


The  "Persian  Letters?  43 

out  of  it  by  a  fable,  the  story  of  the  Troglo- 
dytes proving  that  "  happiness  can  only  be 
secured  by  the  practice  of  virtue."  He  con- 
structs a  Salentum,  but  one  very  different  from 
that  of  Fenelon,  which  was  the  ideal  future 
government  of  the  Duke  of  Burgundy  under 
the  ministry  of  Beauvilliers.  Montesquieu's 
Troglodytes  are  the  precursors  of  Mably's  city 
and  Rousseau's  republic. 

Satirical  and  paradoxical  in  politics,  Mon- 
tesquieu, in  his  "  Persian  Letters,"  is  wholly  a 
freethinker  in  religion.  He  was  young,  con- 
fident of  his  reason,  confident  of  health,  con- 
fident of  life.  He  is  cutting  and  keen  as 
steel,  pitiless  toward  worldly  compromises  and 
eleventh-hour  conversions.  He  has  a  light 
touch  which  seems  to  graze  the  skin  and 
yet  cuts  without  mercy.  All  the  germs  of 
Voltaire's  polemics  appear  in  the  letters  on  the 
changes  in  the  universe  and  the  proofs  of 
Islamism,  but  it  is  Voltaire  at  his  strongest  and 
tersest.  Montesquieu  speaks  of  the  Church 
with  irony,  of  theologians  with  scorn,  of  monks 
with  contempt.  Even  missionaries  find  no 
quarter:  "It  is  a  fine  scheme  to  send  two 
capuchins  to  breathe  the  air  of  Casbin !  " 

Montesquieu  did  not  think  it  good,  either 
for  the  state  or  for  society,  that  new  religions 
be  propagated;  but  wherever  different  ones 


44  Montesquieu. 

exist  they  ought  to  be  constrained  to  live  in 
peace.  This  indirect  and  imperfect  toleration 
is  very  far  removed  from  liberty  of  conscience  ; 
yet  contemporaries  would  have  been  very  well 
suited  with  it.  Great  merit  was  shown  in  pro- 
posing it,  and  great  courage  in  sustaining  it 
openly.  Montesquieu  makes  an  eloquent  de- 
mand for  it.  His  letters  on  the  autos-da-fe,  his 
views  on  the  persecution  of  the  Jews,  his  allu- 
sion to  the  revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes, 
are  among  the  pages  which  do  him  the  high- 
est honor.  They  announce  the  author  of  "  The 
Spirit  of  the  Laws." 

The  author  reveals  himself  by  more  and 
more  marked  indications  as  the  correspond- 
ence between  the  two  Persians  goes  on.  Ro- 
mance, conventionality,  Oriental  trumpery,  the 
tinsel  of  the  opening  pages,  gradually  disap- 
pear from  his  work.  The  side-lights  of  the 
historian,  the  generalizations  of  the  moralist, 
replace  the  detached  observations  and  dis- 
paraging touches  of  satire.  Here  we  detect 
Montesquieu  in  the  act  of  making  reflections 
in  the  course  of  his  reading.  It  would  seem 
that  the  latter  part  of  the  "  Persian  Letters  " 
gives  us  the  best  and  completest  idea  of  the 
notes  he  took,  part  of  which  are  said  to  be 
preserved  at  La  Brede.  In  these  letters  Mon- 
tesquieu developed  whatever  came  into  his 


The  "Persian  Letters?  45 

head,  just  as  it  occurred  to  him.  He  touches 
in  a  sidelong  and  passing  way  on  most  of  the 
problems  which  he  will  soon  wish  to  probe 
more  deeply,  and  which  he  will  endeavor  to 
reduce  to  system.  His  ideas  on  international 
law  and  on  conquest,  on  the  advancement  of 
science,  on  the  classification  of  governments,  on 
the  feudal  and  Teutonic  sources  of  liberty,  are 
here  and  there  caught  sight  of;  and  sometimes 
they  disclose  themselves  with  a  real  grandeur 
through  the  thin  veil  of  these  letters.  His 
opinions  with  regard  to  the  dissolution  of  the 
Turkish  Empire  and  the  declining  power  of 
Spain,  which  he  discerned  with  so  keen  a 
glance,  have  often  been  cited.  I  cannot  help 
extracting  from  his  letter  on  the  Spaniards  a 
few  lines  plainly  marked  by  the  qualities  which 
made  Stendhal  an  admirer  of  the  "Persian 
Letters."  The  emulators  of  Montesquieu  in 
our  day  have  certainly  not  surpassed  him  in 
this  large  and  incisive  manner  of  handling  the 
graver:  — 

"  There  never  was  in  the  seraglio  of  the 
Grand  Turk  a  sultaness  so  proud  of  her  beauty 
as  the  oldest  and  ugliest  Spanish  rascal  who 
sits  with  folded  arms  at  his  door  in  a  Mexican 
town  is  of  the  olive  whiteness  of  his  complex- 
ion. A  man  of  such  consequence,  a  creature 
so  perfect,  would  not  work  for  all  the  treasures 


46  Montesquieu. 

of  the  world,  and  could  never  make  up  his 
mind  to  compromise  the  honor  and  dignity 
of  his  skin  by  vile  and  mechanical  industry. 
.  .  .  But  although  these  invincible  enemies  of 
work  make  a  show  of  philosophical  tranquil- 
lity, there  is  none  of  it  in  their  hearts,  for  they 
are  always  in  love.  They  are  the  first  men  in 
the  world  to  die  of  languishing  beneath  their 
mistresses'  windows ;  and  no  Spaniard  without 
a  cold  in  his  head  could  pass  for  a  lover. 
They  are  bigoted  in  the  first  place,  and  in  the 
second  place,  jealous.  .  .  .  They  say  that  the 
sun  never  sets  in  their  territory;  but  it  must 
be  added  that  he  beholds  in  his  course  only 
deserted  fields  and  desolate  regions." 

I  shall  mention  one  more  feature,  the  essen- 
tial feature  of  the  book  and  of  the  whole  man ; 
namely,  perfect  temperance  in  his  judgment, 
and  prudence  in  his  desires.  In  Montesquieu, 
the  legislator's  cautiousness  constantly  tempers 
severity  of  opinion  and  Utopian  enthusiasm. 
Such  a  spirit  dictates  to  Usbek  that  famous 
doctrine,  —  "  It  is  sometimes  necessary  to 
change  certain  laws,  but  this  rarely  happens ; 
and  when  it  does,  they  must  be  touched  with 
a  timid  and  a  reverent  hand."  It  is  in  the 
same  spirit  that  he  announces  and  sums  up  the 
work  of  the  future:  "I  have  often  sought  to 
discover  what  government  is  most  conformable 


The  "  Persian  Letters?  47 

to  reason.  That  government  seems  to  me  the 
most  perfect  which  attains  its  object  at  the  least 
expense,  and  which  therefore  governs  men  in 
the  way  best  suited  to  their  disposition  and  to 
their  inclination."  Thus  we  have  all  the  pub- 
lic policy  of  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws  "  in  the 
"  Persian  Letters."  In  the  following  we  find 
its  philosophical  doctrine  :  "  Nature  always 
works  slowly,  and,  as  it  were,  with  thrift ;  its 
operations  are  never  violent;  even  in  its  pro- 
ductions it  exhibits  moderation ;  it  never  car- 
ries on  its  processes  except  by  rule  and  meas- 
ure ;  if  it  is  hurried  it  soon  languishes." 


• 


CHAPTER  III. 

SOCIETY.  —  "  THE  TEMPLE  OF  GNIDOS."  — 
THE  ACADEMY.  —  TRAVELS. 

THE  "  Persian  Letters  "  could  only  appear 
anonymously,  under  the  imprint  of  a 
foreign  publisher.  The  censorship  put  up 
with  such  subterfuges,  which  deceived  nobody. 
Printed  at  Rouen,  like  their  illustrious  fore- 
runner the  "  Provincial  Letters,"  the  "  Persian 
Letters"  received  the  imprint  of  an  Amster- 
dam publisher.  Montesquieu  practised,  and 
inspired  in  those  about  him,  the  toleration  he 
preached.  He  had  as  secretary  the  Abbe 
Duval,  who  did  not  lack  intelligence,  and  for 
a  friend  the  Oratorian,  Father  Desmolets,  in 
whom  there  was  nothing  of  the  inquisitor. 
The  Abbe  Duval  corrected  the  proofs  of  his 
book;  Father  Desmolets  sought  to  dissuade 
him  from  publishing  it ;  but  as  this  Father  was 
an  intelligent  man  and  a  good  prophet,  he 
added,  "  It  will  sell  like  bread."  And  so  it  did. 
The  "Persian  Letters"  presented,  under  a  form 
flattering  to  all  the  tastes  of  the  time,  thoughts 


Society.  49 

which  corresponded  to  the  inclinations  of  all 
contemporaries.  The  work  appeared  in  1721. 
Four  authorized  editions  and  four  pirated  ones 
were  published  within  a  year. 

Such  success  could  not  fail  to  provoke  cen- 
sure and  awaken  jealousies.  The  name  of  the 
author  forthwith  became  known.  Society, 
while  amused  by  the  book,  cherished  a  grudge 
because  one  of  its  own  members  had  com- 
posed it.  It  was  the  business  of  a  lampooner, 
and  not  of  a  chief-justice,  to  censure  in  this 
way  their  government,  their  morals,  and  their 
religion.  Men  of  letters  write  such  pamphlets, 
men  of  the  world  are  amused  by  them,  cour- 
tiers condemn  them,  the  author  goes  to  prison, 
and  the  reader  rubs  his  hands.  D'Argenson 
said,  "  These  are  reflections  of  a  kind  which  a 
witty  man  can  easily  make,  but  which  a  pru- 
dent man  ought  never  to  allow  to  be  printed." 
"  A  man  must  be  sparing  of  his  wit  on  such 
subjects,"  wrote  Marivaux  in  his  "  French 
Spectator."  Envy  outdid  criticism.  "  When  I 
had  in  some  degree  gained  the  esteem  of  the 
public,"  Montesquieu  reports,  "that  of  the  offi- 
cial classes  was  lost,  and  I  met  with  a  thousand 
slights."  People  thought  he  had  too  much 
wit,  and  they  made  him  feel  it,  not  by  treating 
him  as  a  satirist,  but  as  an  infidel,  and  almost 
as  a  traitor.  He  suffered  from  this  to  such 
4 


50  Montesquieu. 

a  degree  that  he  refused  to  publicly  acknowl- 
edge this  work,  which  was  his  glory.  "  I 
have  a  mania  for  writing  books,"  said  he, 
"  and  for  being  ashamed  of  them  when  they 
are  written." 

This  was  the  bitter  after-taste  of  success ;  he 
enjoyed,  too,  all  its  gratifications,  and  they 
were  adapted  to  console  him.  He  came  to 
Paris ;  he  was  thirty-three,  and,  as  he  took  care 
to  say,  he  was  still  a  lover;  he  mingled  with 
that  gay  and  lettered  society,  the  delight  of 
his  age  and  its  abiding  ornament.  He  knew 
Maurepas,  the  Count  de  Caylus,  the  Chevalier 
d'Aydies  whom  he  esteemed  so  much,  and  for 
whom  he  seems  to  have  written  this  sentiment : 
"  I  am  enamoured  of  friendship."  He  fre- 
quented the  houses  of  Madame  de  Tencin, 
Madame  de  Lambert,  Madame  du  Deffand. 
He  had  entry  at  Chantilly,  the  palace  of  the 
Duke  of  Bourbon,  and  met  there  Madame  de 
Prie,  who  dispensed  the  honors  both  of  this 
prince's  hospitality  and  of  his  government. 
Montesquieu  managed  to  win  the  good  graces 
of  this  favorite.  He  would  have  liked,  they 
say,  to  receive  more  special  favor  at  the  hands 
of  the  Duke's  sister,  Marie-Anne  of  Bourbon, 
Mademoiselle  de  Clermont.  Her  age  was 
twenty-seven,  and  she  had  beauty,  brilliancy, 
and,  above  all,  sprightliness.  Nattier  has 


"  The  Temple  of  Guides?          5 1 

painted  her  as  a  naiad  with  rosy  cheeks  and 
winning  grace.  Tradition  will  have  it  that 
Montesquieu  was  dazzled  by  her  charms,  and 
that  to  pay  court  to  her  he  composed  "  The 
Temple  of  Gnidos." 

This  is  a  little  prose  poem  which  he  sup- 
poses to  be  translated  from  the  Greek.  "  It 
is  only  well-frizzled  and  well-powdered  heads," 
says  he,  "  that  know  all  the  merit  of '  The  Tem- 
ple of  Gnidos.' "  Thus  he  allows  its  artificial 
and  antiquated  character;  he  classes  it  among 
the  baubles  which  the  frivolity  of  his  age 
has  bequeathed  to  the  curiosity  of  ours.  Of 
this  bouquet  of  voluptuous  fragrance  which 
was  to  enrapture  Chantilly,  scarcely  more  re- 
mains than  a  very  faint  aroma  as  from  a  dry 
scent-bag  in  a  rococo  cabinet.  Leonard  and 
Colardeau  have  versified  these  quintessential 
madrigals,  and  their  amorous  rhetoric  is,  in  its 
kind,  more  pleasing  than  that  of  Montesquieu. 
This  is  not  said  in  praise  of  their  work. 

Yet  even  this  failure  indicates  Montesquieu's 
superiority.  He  is  too  terse,  too  exact,  too 
rich  in  ideas,  for  such  allegorical  trifling.  He 
only  reveals  himself  at  intervals,  when,  forget- 
ful of  his  fair  curled  and  powdered  readers, 
and  taking  his  imitation  seriously,  he  really 
translates  in  his  beautiful  prose  some  fragment 
of  antique  poetry  which  sings  in  his  memory 


52  Montesquieu. 

and  inspires  him.  His  great  familiarity  with 
the  ancients,  his  wonderful  insight  into  their 
genius  for  politics,  reveal  to  him  by  snatches 
their  poetry  and  freshness.  This  artless  note 
was  then  unique ;  neither  Leonard  nor  Colar- 
deau  heard  it;  their  shrill  harpsichord  could 
never  have  rendered  a  tone  so  clear  and  full. 
Nearly  a  century  must  pass  ere  this  note, 
restoring  youth  and  freshness  to  literature, 
should  find  its  echo. 

"There  are  times  when  she  kisses  me  and 
says,  '  You  are  sad.'  '  True,'  I  reply,  '  but 
the  sadness  of  lovers  is  sweet;  I  know  not 
why  my  tears  flow,  for  you  love  me;  I  have 
no  cause  to  mourn,  and  yet  I  lament.  Do  not 
arouse  me  from  my  weakness ;  let  me  sigh 
away  at  once  my  sorrows  and  my  joys.  In 
love's  exaltation  my  soul,  invited  to  a  feast 
it  cannot  taste,  is  unrestful ;  while  now  I  find 
savor  even  in  sadness.  Bid  me  not  dry  my 
tears;  what  matter  though  I  weep,  since  I 
am  happy  ? '  " 1 

1  Since  this  passage  is  cited  wholly  for  its  style,  it  seems 
best  to  give  the  original :  "  Quelquefois  elle  me  dit  en 
m'embrassant :  Tu  es  triste.  —  II  est  vrai,  lui  dis-je  :  mais  la 
tristesse  des  amants  est  delicieuse;  je  sens  couler  mes 
larmes,  et  je  ne  sais  pourquoi,  car  tu  m'aimes ;  je  n'ai  point 
de  sujet  de  me  plaindre,  et  je  me  plains.  Ne  me  retire  point 
de  la  langueur  ou  je  suis;  laisse-moi  soupirer  en  meme 
temps  mes  peines  et  mes  plaisirs.  Dans  les  transports  de 


"  The  Temple  of  Gnidos"          53 

Might  this  not  pass  for  the  prose  argument 
of  an  elegy  by  Andre  Chenier?  The  baccha- 
nal of  Canto  VI.  makes  us  think  of  the  unfin- 
ished draughts  of  eclogues  by  the  author  of 
"  The  Beggar."  Chenier  drew  his  inspiration 
from  the  same  sources.  He  was  a  great  reader 
of  Montesquieu,  as  may  be  seen  from  his  prose. 
It  seems  to  me  that  the  point  of  agreement 
between  the  greatest  prose-writer  of  the  cen- 
tury and  its  greatest  poet  is  here  detected. 
Montesquieu,  though  not  able  to  "  sigh  forth 
a  verse  full  of  love  and  of  tears,"  had  at  least 
been  touched  by  a  ray  of  light  from  Greece. 
His  was  a  mind  that  outran  its  age ;  this 
most  marked  of  his  characteristics  is  displayed 
even  here.  In  this  little  work  he  is  merely 
trifling,  yet  we  perceive  the  flash  of  his  ge- 
nius. We  perceive  also  the  jargon  and  the 
display  of  theatrical  frippery,  which  awkward 
imitators  assume  to  be  the  style  and  the 
garb  of  antiquity,  —  "a  joy  and  innocence " 
somewhat  unexpected  among  the  nymphs  of 
Venus ;  "  a  patriotic  heart  "  figuring  more 
oddly  still;  and  the  "  daughters  of  proud 
Lacedaemon,"  sketched  rather  roguishly  as  by 

1'amour,  mon  a~me  est  trop  agitee ;  elle  est  entrainee  vers  son 
bonheur  sans  en  jouir ;  au  lieu  qu'a  present  je  goute  ma 
tristesse  meme.  N'essuie  point  mes  larmes  :  qu'importe  que 
je  pleure,  puisque  je  suis  heureux?"  —  TR. 


54  Montesquieu. 

some  satirical  artist  after  leaving  a  Directory 
reception. 

"  The  Temple  of  Gnidos  "  appeared  at  Paris 
in  1725,  with  the  royal  license  to  print.  Mon- 
tesquieu took  good  care  not  to  sign  it.  He 
had  every  reason  to  congratulate  himself  for 
his  discretion ;  indeed,  the  Abb6  de  Voisenon 
intimates  that  his  pasticcio  brought  him  many 
favors  which  were  conditioned  upon  his  con- 
cealment of  them.  He  made  bold  to  present 
himself  to  the  French  Academy,  although  he 
had  but  lately  made  game  of  that  illustrious 
assembly.  He  belonged  to  the  society  whence 
it  recruited  its  members,  and  he  was  elected ; 
but  as  he  passed  for  the  author  of  the  "  Persian 
Letters,"  the  king  refused  his  consent  to  the 
Academy's  choice  on  the  pretext  that  Montes- 
quieu was  not  a  resident  of  Paris.  Montesquieu 
went  back  to  Bordeaux  and  took  pains  to 
make  himself  eligible.  In  1725  he  read  to 
the  local  Academy  of  Bordeaux  fragments  of 
a  stoical  treatise  on  "  Duties,"  and  his  "  Re- 
flections on  Distinction  and  Reputation."  He 
delivered  an  "  Address  on  the  Motives  that 
Should  Encourage  us  in  the  Pursuit  of  Knowl- 
edge," which  is  full  of  fine  touches  of  hu- 
manity. This  done,  he  sold  his  office  as  chief- 
justice  and  came  to  establish  himself  at  Paris. 
At  this  time  he  was  beginning  to  sketch  in  his 


The  Academy.  55 

mind  the  design  of  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws." 
His  installation  came  before  his  masterpiece. 

In  1727  he  presented  himself  to  the  Acad- 
emy a  second  time.  Cardinal  Fleury  had  still 
half  a  mind  to  keep  him  out;  but  Montesquieu 
and  his  friends  succeeded  in  quieting  the 
ministerial  scruples.  He  was  elected  on  the 
5th  of  January,  1728,  and  admitted  on  the  24th 
of  the  same  month.  It  could  not  be  said  of 
his  address,  as  of  some  others,  that  it  was 
a  sufficient  title  to  membership.  There  is 
nothing  in  it  to  praise  except  its  conciseness, 
and  a  beautiful  sentence  on  peace  and  on  the 
blood  of  men,  "  that  blood  ever  dyeing  the 
earth  afresh."  Out  of  politeness,  and  to  con- 
form to  custom,  Montesquieu  extolled  Riche- 
lieu, whom  he  detested,  and  Louis  XIV.,  whose 
character  he  had  torn  to  pieces.  Mallet,  who 
gave  the  address  of  welcome,  challenged  him 
to  justify  his  election  by  speedily  making  his 
works  public.  He  added  somewhat  mali- 
ciously, "  The  public  will  anticipate  you  unless 
you  forestall  it.  The  genius  which  it  perceives 
in  you  will  induce  it  to  attribute  to  you  anony- 
mous works,  in  which  it  finds  imagination, 
sprightliness,  bold  satire ;  and  to  do  honor  to 
your  wit,  it  will  assign  them  to  you  in  spite  of 
the  precautions  which  your  prudence  may  sug- 
gest." Mallet  himself,  when,  in  1715,  he  took 


56  Montesquieu. 

the  place  of  the  Chevalier  de  Tourreil,  had 
only  composed  a  single  ode.  Of  this  lonely 
ode  posterity  would  probably  have  known 
nothing  if  chance  had  not  afforded  to  its 
barren  author  an  opportunity  to  taunt  Mon- 
tesquieu with  the  insufficiency  of  his  title. 

Montesquieu  was  weak  enough  to  take  of- 
fence at  this.  He  seldom  appeared  at  the 
Academy ;  it  is  hinted  that  he  did  not  feel  at 
his  ease  there;  he  did  not  meet  with  such  a 
welcome  as  he  could  have  desired.  He  wished  » 
to  travel  in  order  to  study  for  himself  the  in- 
stitutions and  customs  of  nations.  He  set  out 
to  make  the  tour  of  Europe.  He  began  with 
Germany. and  Austria,  in  the  company  of  an 
English  diplomatist,  the  Earl  of  Waldegrave, 
nephew  of  Marshal  Berwick.  Montesquieu 
had  formed  the  acquaintance  of  this  Marshal 
Berwick  at  Bordeaux,  and  admired  him  much. 

Montesquieu  was  heartily  welcomed  at 
Vienna,  where  he  met  Prince  Eugene.  The 
agreeable  and  easy  manners,  the  pleasure  of 
observing,  the  brilliancy  of  court  life,  and  the 
prestige  of  great  public  business,  fascinated 
him  for  a  time,  and  he  desired  the  privilege  of 
entering  upon  an  embassy.  The  ministry  at 
Versailles  did  not  think  him  worthy  of  it,  and 
thus  showed  itself  hard  to  please ;  but  we 
ought  not  to  regret  it.  Montesquieu  would 


Travels.  57 

have  wasted  his  fine  genius  in  the  ruthless 
game  of  politics  in  which  humanity  is  always 
the  dummy.  The  world  would  have  lost 
"  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws,"  and  it  is  not  certain 
that  France  would  have  gained  a  diplomatist 

Montesquieu  had  the  characteristics  of  the 
political  observer,  but  these  form  only  the  bare 
canvas  on  which  the  statesman  embroiders  his 
tapestry.  He  lacked  the  incessant  activity, 
the  attention  to  externals,  the  pride  of  power, 
the  selfish  national  spirit,  without  which  no 
negotiator  —  and  of  course  no  minister  —  can 
succeed.  He  had  too  much  human  sympa- 
thy for  this  harsh  trade  of  harrowing  nations. 
"When  I  travelled  in  foreign  countries,"  he 
says,  "  I  became  attached  to  them  as  if  they 
were  my  own.  I  took  an  interest  in  their  wel- 
fare, and  was  pleased  when  I  saw  them  in  a 
flourishing  condition."  This  is  the  law-giver's 
spirit,  —  not  that  of  the  politicians  of  the  time, 
who  from  their  high  towers  kept  a  lookout 
for  passing  foreigners  for  the  sole  purpose  of 
drawing  them  into  ambush  and  extorting  heavy 
ransoms. 

"  If  I  knew  of  anything,"  he  said  again, 
"  advantageous  to  my  family  but  not  to  my 
country,  I  should  try  to  forget  it.  If  I  knew  of 
anything  advantageous  to  my  country  which 
was  prejudicial  to  Europe  and  to  the  human 


58  Montesquieu. 

race,  I  should  look  upon  it  as  a  crime."  This 
is  quite  opposed  to  Macchiavelli,  and  it  is  also 
opposed  to  diplomacy  as  then  understood, 
and  as  it  has  been  almost  universally  under- 
stood since  then.  One  who  held  such  opinions 
was  not  suited  to  the  trade  in  human  beings 
which  his  contemporaries  practised ;  he  would 
have  made  a  sorry  antagonist  to  a  gamester 
like  Frederic.  The  fact  is  that  as  he  passed 
through  Germany,  while  considering  its  weak- 
nesses he  only  thought  of  how  to  cure  them, 
desiring  that  country  to  reform  its  constitution, 
to  gather  strength,  and  to  form  a  vigorous 
confederation.  All  this  would  have  been  the 
undoing  of  the  treaty  of  Westphalia  and  of 
the  French  policy.  The  clerks  in  the  foreign 
office  would  have  shown  little  taste  for  these 
dreams,  and  would  have  sent  Montesquieu 
back  to  his  "  Temple  of  Gnidos."  Let  us 
agree  that  this  career  was  not  suited  to  him ; 
it  would  have  offered  him  too  many  induce- 
ments to  become  a  dupe  at  the  expense  of  his 
country,  and  too  few  chances  to  employ  his 
talents  in  her  service. 

He  visited  Hungary,  where  he  could  study 
feudalism  and  serfdom;  he  beheld  from  a 
distance  over  the  frontier  the  republic  of  Po- 
land, and  inquired  into  the  causes  of  the  an- 
archy which  was  bringing  it  to  ruin ;  then  he 


Travels.  59 

went  over  to  Italy.  Venice  was  like  a  merry 
inn  for  the  rest  of  Europe,  and  the  place  of 
refuge  for  fallen  greatness.  Montesquieu  did 
not  fail  to  find  amusement  here.  Here  he 
met  Law,  who  was  teaching  political  economy 
backward  ;  Bonneval,  who  was  preparing  to  put 
into  practice  in  their  simplicity  the  precepts 
of  the  "  Persian  Letters ; "  and  Lord  Chester- 
field, who  formed  a  close  friendship  with  our 
French  traveller.  He  observed  the  aristoc- 
racy, the  Council  of  Ten,  the  Venetian  police, 
and  the  government  inquisitors.  He  watched 
them  quite  persistently ;  he  thought  that  they 
watched  him  in  turn  with  the  same  care;  at 
this  he  took  umbrage,  suddenly  left  Venice, 
and  threw  his  notes  into  the  sea.  Italy  en- 
chanted him ;  it  opened  his  eyes  to  the  fine 
arts.  He  prided  himself  upon  being  an  eclec- 
tic in  regard  to  friendship.  He  was  known  to 
associate,  at  one  and  the  same  time,  and  in  the 
same  cordial  way,  with  the  French  ambassa- 
dor, Cardinal  Polignac,  author  of  the  "  Anti- 
Lucretius,"  with  the  Calvinist  pastor,  Jacob 
Vernet,  and  with  several  Italian  Monsignors. 
He  enjoyed  their  society,  being  very  intimate 
for  some  time  with  a  Piedmontese  abbe,  Count 
Guasco,  who  did  not  pose  precisely  as  a  grave 
doctor,  but  who  was  justly  reputed  to  be  the 
gayest  and  most  gentlemanly  of  churchmen. 


60  Montesquieu. 

Montesquieu  completed  the  year  1728  in 
Italy;  he  employed  the  early  months  of  1729 
in  travelling  through  Switzerland,  the  Rhine- 
lands,  and  Holland,  where  he  met  Lord  Ches- 
terfield again.  This  lord  took  him  to  Eng- 
land, and  there  Montesquieu  remained  from 
October,  1 729,  to  August,  1731.  He  frequented 
Parliament,  and  learned  to  read  the  political 
writings  of  Locke.  Thus  he  discovered  free 
government,  and  conceived  the  design  of  re- 
vealing it  to  Europe.  It  would  seem  that  up 
to  this  time  hardly  any  one  except  a  few 
French  refugees  had  dreamed  of  this  new 
world  in  politics.  In  1717,  and  again  in  1724, 
Rapin  de  Thoyras  had  published  a  very  clever 
description  of  it.  Montesquieu  became  ac- 
quainted with  this  book,  and  profited  by  it  so 
well  that  he  made  posterity  forget  it.  Nothing 
escaped  his  scholarly  scrutiny ;  he  had  a  keen 
eye  for  details,  while  in  the  search  for  causes 
and  the  pursuit  of  conclusions  his  vision  was 
wide  and  sweeping.  His  memoranda,  hastily 
jotted  down,  are  such  masterpieces  of  exact- 
ness, brevity,  and  perspective  as  we  should  ex- 
pect from  the  La  Rochefoucauld  of  politics. 

This  sentence  is  ascribed  to  Montesquieu 
as  summing  up  his  travels:  "Germany  is  the 
land  to  travel  through ;  Italy  the  land  to  so- 
journ in;  England  the  land  to  think  in; 


Travels.  6 1 

France  the  land  to  live  in."  He  came  back 
to  La  Brede  after  more  than  three  years'  ab- 
sence; he  rejoined  his  family,  busied  himself 
about  his  affairs,  cultivated  his  vines,  had  his 
genealogy  prepared,  and  transformed  his  park 
into  an  English  garden.  Henceforth  his  chief 
occupation  was  the  composition  of  the  book 
which  he  had  carried  in  his  head  throughout 
Europe.  It  was  only  in  his  provincial  quiet 
and  leisure  that  he  found  himself  able  to  com- 
plete it.  He  wished  to  write  the  social  history 
of  mankind,  the  history  of  man  in  his  political 
and  legal  relations.  He  had  sketched  many 
fragments  of  it :  an  "  Essay  on  the  Finances 
of  Spain,"  "  Reflections  on  the  Universal  Mon- 
archy in  Europe,"  a  "  History  of  Louis  XI." 
From  what  has  remained  of  this  last  work,  we 
can  say  of  it  as  Montesquieu  said  of  Michael 
Angelo,  — "  Even  in  his  sketches,  as  in  the 
verses  left  unfinished  by  Vergil,  there  is  an 
element  of  greatness." 

He  was  filled  with  the  spirit  of  Rome.  "The 
ruins  of  so  tremendous  a  fabric  "  did  not  im- 
press his  imagination  by  their  picturesque  ap- 
pearance or  their  sepulchral  character  as  they 
did  that  of  Montaigne.  Under  these  scattered 
fragments  Montesquieu  had  caught  a  glimpse 
of  the  city,  and  from  all  these  pieces  of  skel- 
eton he  reconstructed  in  thought  this  extinct 


62  Montesquieu. 

mammoth.  More  as  historian  than  painter, 
and  more  as  philosopher  than  narrator,  he 
sought  the  secret  of  the  life  and  death  of  this 
powerful  organism.  Probably  he  planned  to 
make  this  merely  a  part  of  his  work  on  the 
laws.  It  was  to  form  the  main  episode  because 
it  was  his  principal  proof.  But  as  the  episode 
threatened  to  overrun  the  book,  he  detached 
it,  and  then  polished  and  chiselled  it  as  his 
favorite  work.  He  enjoyed  writing.  He  had 
chosen  the  noblest  subject  in  the  world,  and  he 
set  himself  the  task,  according  to  the  saying 
of  Florus,  of  including  "  in  a  miniature  like- 
ness the  entire  image  of  the  Roman  people." 
Accordingly  in  1734  appeared  his  "  Consid- 
erations on  the  Causes  of  the  Greatness  and 
Decline  of  the  Romans ;  "  and  some  years  later, 
in  1745,  the  "Dialogue  of  Sulla  and  Eucrates." 
This  dialogue  forms  an  admirable  appendix  to 
the  "  Considerations,"  and  cannot  be  treated 
separately. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

"  CONSIDERATIONS  ON  THE  CAUSES  OF  THE 
GREATNESS  AND  DECLINE  OF  THE  ROMANS." 
"  DIALOGUE  OF  SULLA  AND  EUCRATES." 

"\17HAT  attracted  and  held  Montesquieu's 
attention  to  Rome  was  his  pursuit  of 
the  most  complete  political  phenomenon  that 
history  presents  for  our  observation.  Several 
phenomena  of  this  kind,  thus  observed,  would 
furnish  a  key  to  all  the  rest.  Politics  has  its 
laws,  which  experience  develops  and  history 
ascertains.  History  is  a  science  only  in  so  far 
as  it  collects,  classifies,  and  connects  phe- 
nomena, and  points  out  the  connecting  links. 
"As  men  have  at  all  times  had  the  same 
passions,"  wrote  Montesquieu,  "  the  occasions 
giving  rise  to  great  changes  have  been  differ- 
ent, but  their  causes  always  the  same."  The 
investigation  of  these  causes  in  Roman  history 
is  the  chief  aim  of  his  book. 

He  had  had  illustrious  predecessors  in  his 
study  of  Rome.  Polybius,  whom  he  had  thor- 
oughly analyzed,  Tacitus,  by  whom  he  was  so 


64  Montesquieu. 

inspired  as  sometimes  to  equal  him,  had  each 
shown  sequence  and  consequence  in  Roman 
affairs ;  but  the  idea  of  a  higher  general  law 
had  not  entered  their  minds.  Macchiavelli,  in 
his  "  Treatise  on  Titus  Livius,"  advanced  no 
farther.  He  is  wholly  empirical,  and  is  not  so 
much  occupied  with  grouping  events  together 
as  with  deducing  their  lesson.  "  Chance,"  said 
Macchiavelli,  "  does  not  so  govern  the  world 
that  foresight  has  no  share  in  what  takes 
place."  To  increase  this  share  by  dint  of  skil- 
fully forecasting  the  future,  and  to  learn  this 
art  in  the  school  of  the  ancients,  was  the  aim 
he  proposed  to  himself.  Causes  matter  little 
to  Macchiavelli,  institutions  hardly  occupy  him 
at  all,  the  difference  in  the  times  does  not  im- 
press him ;  he  analyzes  the  facts  and  draws 
from  them  rules  for  managing  men.  History 
to  him  is  only  that  great  "  political  dispen- 
sary "  of  which  Mirabeau  was  wont  to  talk  after 
devoting  too  much  study  to  "  The  Prince." 

Macchiavelli  was  a  politician,  and  had  plunged 
into  revolutions;  Saint- Ivvremond  had  hardly 
more  than  passed  them  in  the  spirit  of  curios- 
ity and  adventure.  In  his  "  Reflections  on  the 
Several  Talents  of  the  Roman  People,"  he 
deals  principally  with  men  and  their  charac- 
ters. The  bond  of  connection  escapes  him. 
Bossuet  at  once  discovers  this  bond  of  con- 


"  Considerations  on  the  Romans'"     65 

nection.  By  reason  of  its  continuity,  its  con- 
sistency, its  constant  and  regular  course,  Ro- 
man history  was  a  subject  well  suited  to  the 
majestic  logic  of  Bossuet's  genius.  No  one 
has  equalled  him  in  his  exposition  of  Rome's 
greatness.  The  wealth  of  his  language  is  in 
harmony  with  the  magnitude  of  his  subject. 
Men  and  their  passions  are  not  forgotten ;  but 
Bossuet  leaves  to  them  only  the  details  of 
events,  the  variable  and  transitory  externals 
of  history.  He  wishes  his  reader  to  grasp  "  the 
thread  connecting  all  events."  This  thread  he 
really  makes  visible,  as  it  runs  through  the 
course  of  human  affairs ;  but  the  men  who 
twist  and  wind  it  do  not  guide  it.  Bossuet 
traces  it  to  the  hand  of  God  himself,  from 
whom  it  comes,  and  to  whom  it  returns.  What- 
ever influence  Bossuet  attributes  to  "  the  in- 
dividual genius  of  those  who  have  caused 
great  movements,"  and  however  constantly  the 
historian  in  his  nature  gets  the  better  of 
the  theologian,  it  is  the  theologian  who  has 
the  first  and  last  word.  He  remains  always 
the  very  humble  subject  and  adorer  of  that 
Providence  to  whom,  as  has  been  wittily  said, 
he  boasts  of  being  privy  councillor.  God 
planned,  he  declares,  "  that  the  course  of 
human  events  should  be  connected  and  duly 
proportioned."  But  this  same  connection  and 
5 


66  Montesquieu. 

proportion  has  for  its  only  object  the  triumph 
of  the  Church.  Witness  "  the  secret  decrees 
of  God  concerning  the  Roman  Empire,  —  that 
mystery  which  the  Holy  Spirit  revealed  to 
Saint  John,  and  which  that  great  man,  apostle, 
evangelist,  and  prophet  set  forth  in  the  Apoca- 
lypse." The  "  Discourse  on  Universal  His- 
tory "  is,  in  fine,  a  pious  and  solemn  application 
to  history  of  the  doctrine  of  final  causes. 

Montesquieu  made  no  pretence  to  theology, 
and  paid  no  attention  to  final  causes.  Like 
Bossuet  he  allows  a  very  large  share  to  men's 
free  choice,  and  to  the  activity  of  individuals 
in  carrying  out  their  designs;  like  Bossuet 
he  recognizes  that  things  go  in  politics  "  as 
in  gaming,  where  the  cleverest  player  is,  in 
the  long  run,  the  winner;"  but  he  conceives 
that  the  game  has  its  rules,  a  table  at  which 
it  is  played,  circles  which  engage  in  it ;  even 
cleverness  can  only  be  exercised  under  given 
conditions,  and  none  of  these  things  is  the  re- 
sult of  chance.  The  entanglement  of  causes 
and  effects  provides  history  with  a  plot ;  the 
reciprocal  relations  and  attractions  connecting 
men  and  ideas,  and  the  general  trend  of  events, 
determine  its  working  out.  "  It  is  not  chance 
that  rules  the  world,"  says  Montesquieu ; 
"  witness  the  Romans,  who  had  a  constant 
succession  of  triumphs  while  they  managed 


"  Considerations  on  the  Romans"'1    67 

their  government  on  a  certain  plan,  and  an 
uninterrupted  series  of  reverses  when  it  was 
conducted  upon  another.  There  are  general 
causes,  either  moral  or  physical,  at  work  in 
every  monarchy,  exalting,  maintaining,  or  over- 
throwing it.  All  accidents  are  subordinate  to 
these  causes,  and  if  the  chance  of  a  battle,  that 
is  to  say  a  special  cause,  has  ruined  a  state, 
there  was  a  general  cause  which  made  it  possi- 
ble for  the  state  to  perish  by  a  single  battle ; 
in  a  word,  the  general  tendency  controls  every 
particular  accident." 

It  is  owing  to  this  wholly  scientific  concep- 
tion that  Montesquieu  is  reckoned  among  the 
great  masters  of  modern  history.  The  perfec- 
tion of  his  style  has  made  him  one  of  our 
literary  classics.  Nowhere  has  he  been  more 
entirely  himself — more  thoroughly  Latin  and 
more  unaffectedly  French  —  than  in  his  "  Con- 
siderations on  the  Greatness  and  Decline  of  the 
Romans."  Critics  have  praised  the  lively  and 
vigorous  style  of  this  book,  the  firmness  and 
grandeur  of  its  movement,  the  breadth  of  its 
treatment,  the  brief  and  grand  imagery  used 
in  exposition,  that  conciseness  which  recalls 
Sallust  and  Tacitus,  that  art  of  "  steeping 
words  in  their  primitive  dyes  and  restoring 
to  them  all  their  pristine  color,"  of  eliciting 
their  full  meaning  by  dashing  them  into  the 


68  Montesquieu. 

phrase  in  their  original  figurative  sense,  of 
doubling  the  effect  by  the  unexpected  appli- 
cation to  a  great  subject  of  a  simple  and  popu- 
lar expression,  dimmed  and  worn  by  use  and 
tarnished  by  time.  "  Nothing  served  Rome 
better  than  the  respect  that  she  imposed  upon 
the  world.  She  at  once  stopped  the  mouths 
and  stupefied  the  minds  of  kings."1  Passages 
like  this  could  be  cited  from  every  page  of  the 
"  Considerations." 

Montesquieu's  judgments  as  a  whole,  like 
his  style,  and  like  his  historical  method,  have 
proved  correct.  If  one  were  to  frame  a  run- 
ning commentary  to  the  "  Considerations,"  and 
so  put  the  book  abreast  of  modern  research, 
the  notes  would  swamp  the  text.  The  same 
would  hold  true  of  Cuvier's  "  Epochs  of  Na- 
ture," if  the  attempt  had  been  made  to  keep 
the  work  abreast  of  the  progress  of  science 
from  Cuvier  to  Darwin.  But  why  undertake 
such  a  thing?  The  recent  histories  of  Rome 
will  be  read,  but  they  will  never  be  under- 
stood so  well  as  after  reading  Montesquieu ; 
and  Montesquieu  will  never  be  understood  so 

1  It  is  difficult,  in  matters  of  style,  to  make  a  translated 
illustration  illustrate.  Montesquieu's  words  are :  "  Rien 
ne  servit  mieux  Rome  que  le  respect  qu'elle  impritna  &  la 
terre.  Elle  mit  d'abord  les  rois  dans  le  silence,  et  les  rendit 
comme  stupides."  —  TR. 


"  Considerations  on  the  Romans"    69 

well  as  after  reading  the  recent  histories.  We 
might  compare  his  book  to  an  ancient  temple 
whose  sill  has  half  crumbled  away :  the  parti- 
tion walls  have  fallen  in,  and  the  interior  is 
open  to  all  the  winds ;  but  the  marble  columns 
surrounding  it  yet  stand,  the  capitals  have  not 
suffered,  the  pediment  remains,  the  frieze  is 
intact,  and,  beheld  at  a  proper  distance,  the 
edifice  preserves  all  the  noble  outlines  of  its 
architecture.  If  you  should  attempt  its  resto- 
ration to  correspond  with  the  models  and  the 
fragments  of  the  museums,  you  might  make 
the  structure  totter,  but  you  could  in  no  wise 
enhance  its  beauty. 

Montesquieu  cared  not  for  the  criticism  of 
antiquaries.  He  was  ignorant  of  archaeology, 
which  made  possible  the  reconstruction,  stone 
by  stone,  of  what  fable  had  perverted  and 
criticism  annihilated.  Livy's  stories  about 
the  early  days  of  Rome  he  took  literally. 
Strangely  enough,  the  man  who  was  to  specu- 
late and  discourse  so  complacently  about  cli- 
mates, appears  not  to  have  concerned  himself 
about  that  of  Rome,  any  more  than  about  the 
character  of  the  men  who  founded  the  city. 
Michelet,  and  after  him  Duruy  and  Mommsen, 
utilized  the  soil  and  race  as  aids  to  their  re- 
flections. M.  Fustel  de  Coulanges  has  shown 
the  intimate  relation  existing  between  the 


70  Montesquieu. 

history  of  the  city  and  that  of  its  religion. 
Hardly  any  of  these  things  were  perceived  in 
Montesquieu's  time,  and  he  had  no  taste  for 
examining  them  more  closely  than  his  contem- 
poraries. The  social  questions,  and  what  may 
be  called  Rome's  political  economy  in  the  ear- 
liest period  of  the  republic,  also  escaped  his 
notice.  As  he  had  not  observed  any  revolu- 
tions of  this  sort,  he  lacked  the  essential  factor 
for  inductive  reasoning.  All  that  the  history 
of  England  —  especially  that  of  Cromwell's 
England  —  taught  him,  he  made  good  use  of. 
But  even  in  England  the  side  which  was  fanati- 
cal and  revolutionary,  in  the  modern  sense  of 
the  word,  did  not  impress  him.  He  never 
dwells  on  anything  but  political  crises.  These 
furnish  him  with  remarkable  reflective  pas- 
sages. For  example,  this :  "  No  state  is  so  apt 
to  threaten  others  with  conquest  as  one  in  the 
throes  of  civil  war.  .  .  .  Never  was  England 
so  much  feared  as  under  Cromwell." 

Montesquieu  does  not  show  his  real  grasp  of 
the  subject  until  he  reaches  Chapter  V.,  where 
he  gives  a  masterly  picture  of  the  world  at  the 
period  of  its  conquest  by  Rome.  In  the  fol- 
lowing chapter  he  investigates  the  methods 
of  this  conquest.  These  are  the  classic  pages 
of  the  book.  In  this  analysis  of  the  Roman 
genius  and  of  the  causes  of  Rome's  greatness, 


"  Considerations  on  the  Romans"     7 1 

he  notes  the  attachment  of  each  citizen  for 
his  city,  the  love  of  all  the  citizens  for  their 
country,  their  constant  practice  of  war,  their 
discipline,  the  way  in  which  their  constitution 
concentrated  the  power  in  time  of  war  and 
allowed  every  abuse  of  this  power  to  be  cor- 
rected in  time  of  peace,  the  logical  sequence 
and  due  proportions  of  their  designs,  the  talent 
of  the  Romans  for  dividing  their  enemies,  their 
readiness  to  adopt  all  the  useful  inventions  of 
other  races,  their  skill  elsewhere  unknown  in 
ancient  times  in  blending  with  themselves  sub- 
jected nations  and  making  the  most  of  con- 
quered countries,  their  amazing  fortitude  in 
defeat,  the  firmness  of  their  senate,  that  fortu- 
nate concurrence  of  circumstances,  that  "  gen- 
eral tendency "  which  turned  everything  to 
their  advantage,  —  even  their  mistakes,  because 
they  were  able  to  understand  them  and  repair 
them,  —  the  continuous  application  of  these 
two  maxims  to  which  all  else  was  subordi- 
nated, "  Maintain  the  general  welfare  at  home, 
extend  our  conquests  abroad,"  —  in  a  word, 
everywhere  and  always  the  public  interest. 
As  Montesquieu  finely  says,  "  It  is  upon  this 
stage  that  one  should  witness  the  drama  of 
human  affairs ;  "  and  no  one  has  presented 
this  drama  more  nobly  than  Montesquieu. 
Admirable  though  it  is,  perhaps  he  admires 


72  Montesquieu. 

too  much  that  terrible  play  of  stern  and  deliber- 
ate force,  those  political  virtues  "  which  were 
destined  to  be  so  fatal  to  the  world."  The 
philosopher  is  too  much  eclipsed  by  the  ob- 
server. Montesquieu  will  soon  disclose  in  his 
"  Spirit  of  the  Laws  "  the  supreme  and  decisive 
sanction  of  this  conquest;  here  he  describes 
its  phenomena  and  notices  its  implacable  and 
barbarous  character :  "  As  they  never  made 
peace  in  good  faith,  and  as,  owing  to  their 
purpose  of  encroaching  on  all,  their  treaties 
were  properly  only  temporary  suspensions  of 
war,  they  inserted  conditions  which  always 
began  the  ruin  of  the  government  accepting 
them.  .  .  .  Sometimes  they  negotiated  with 
a  prince  for  peace  on  reasonable  terms,  and 
when  he  had  carried  them  out,  they  added 
such  conditions  that  he  was  forced  to  begin 
the  war  anew.  .  .  .  Rome  constantly  grew 
richer,  and  each  war  put  her  in  condition 
to  undertake  another.  The  Romans  became 
masters  of  Africa,  Asia,  Greece,  and  scarcely 
kept  a  city  for  themselves.  Seemingly  they 
conquered  only  to  give  away;  but  they  re- 
tained such  a  thorough  mastery,  that  when 
they  made  war  on  some  prince  they  crushed 
him,  as  it  were,  by  the  weight  of  the  whole 
world." 

Montesquieu,  not  content  with  analyzing  the 


" Sulla  and Eucrates"  73 

genius  of  Rome,  displays  it  in  action.  He 
felt,  as  he  studied  the  Romans,  their  deep  and 
concentrated  passions;  and  unable  to  resist 
his  desire  to  depict  them,  he  composed  the 
"  Dialogue  between  Sulla  and  Eucrates."  The 
endeavor  has  been  made  to  discover  here  a 
settled  determination  to  defend,  by  paradox 
and  irony,  the  policy  of  aggrandizement  and 
audacity  in  crime.  It  is  more  just  to  see  in  it 
simply  a  flash  of  genius  from  a  great  histo- 
rian who  for  the  nonce  becomes  a  poet  and 
brings  his  characters  upon  the  stage.  Mon- 
tesquieu represents  them  according  to  his 
taste  and  the  spirit  of  his  age.  Mommsen,  if 
inspiration  had  thus  impelled  him,  would 
doubtless  have  sought  in  a  similar  case  to  com- 
pose something  Shakspearian.  Mommsen's 
Sulla  is  a  sort  of  romantic  hero  of  fiery  tem- 
per, with  a  fair  complexion  coloring  at  the 
slightest  emotion,  piercing  blue  eyes,  and  fine 
features ;  a  generous,  ironical,  witty  man,  oscil- 
lating between  a  passionate  frenzy  for  action 
and  intervals  of  calm.  Montesquieu's  Sulla  is 
a  Frenchman,  one  of  the  classic  age ;  brought 
up  on  Macchiavelli,  he  speaks  like  the  terrible 
adventurers  who  served  as  originals  for  Mo- 
liere's  Don  Juan :  — 

"  Eucrates,  if  I  am  no  longer  a  spectacle  to 
the  world,  it  is  not  my  fault,  but  that  of  the 


74  Montesquieu. 

necessary  limits  of  human  affairs.  ...  I  was 
not  framed  to  govern  peaceably  a  nation  of 
slaves.  I  love  to  carry  off  victories,  to  found 
or  destroy  states.  ...  I  have  never  pretended 
to  be  either  the  slave  or  the  idolater  of  the 
society  of  my  fellows ;  and  this  love  so  much 
extolled  is  too  vulgar  a  passion  to  be  com- 
patible with  my  loftiness  of  soul.  I  have  been 
guided  only  by  my  own  thoughts,  and  above 
all  by  my  scorn  of  men." 

How  weary  he  is  of  it  all,  in  spite  of  his  pride, 
—  sick  of  men,  as  they  said  toward  the  close  of 
the  century,  but  yet  unsatisfied  and  insatiable ! 
Corneille  has  grandly  expressed  the  supreme 
satiety  that  boundless  power  leaves :  — 

"  How  gorged  ambition  fills  me  with  disgust !  .  .  . 
I  longed  for  empire,  and  obtained  it  too, 
But  what  I  longed  for  little  then  I  knew." 

"  And  for  my  part,  Eucrates,"  adds  Montes- 
quieu's Sulla,  still  more  bitterly  and  harshly, 
"  I  never  was  so  discontented  as  when  I  beheld 
myself  absolute  master  of  Rome;  when  I  looked 
around  me  and  saw  neither  rivals  nor  ene- 
mies. I  thought  that  some  day  people  would 
say  that  I  chastised  only  slaves."  The  weari- 
ness he  feels  inspires  him  with  his  most  sur- 
prising resolve :  he  lays  aside  the  dictatorship 
at  the  very  time  when  it  was  thought  that  the 
dictatorship  was  his  only  safeguard.  All  the 


"  Sulla  and  Eucrates."  75 

Romans  are  dumb  before  him,  and  he  finds 
himself  alone,  impatient  and  unsatisfied  as 
before.  He  concludes  with  these  words :  "  I 
have  astonished  mankind,  and  that  is  much." 
It  is  enough  in  order  to  secure  victims,  not 
enough  to  make  a  man  happy. 

Montesquieu  might  have  found  Sulla  again 
in  Caesar  and  have  given  us  a  sequel,  but 
he  appears  not  to  have  thought  of  it.  Since 
we  have  known  Danton  and  Robespierre,  the 
Gracchi  are  invested  for  us  with  new  life,  and 
we  see  them  in  all  Roman  revolutions;  and 
since  Bonaparte,  Caesar  has  encroached  on 
Roman  history.  The  great  modern  revolution 
has  changed  all  the  points  of  view,  even  those 
from  which  we  behold  antiquity.  Montesquieu, 
who  judged  from  so  high  a  standpoint  and 
penetrated  so  well  the  genius  of  Alexander 
and  of  Charlemagne,  seems  inclined  to  depre- 
ciate that  of  Caesar.  He  seems  to  say  with 
Shakspeare's  Cassius  :  — 

"  Brutus  and  Caesar :  what  should  be  in  that  '  Caesar '  ? 
Why  should  that  name  be  sounded  more  than  yours  ?  .  .  . 
Upon  what  meat  doth  this  our  Caesar  feed, 
That  he  is  grown  so  great  ?  " 

Montesquieu  recognizes  the  great  captain  and 
politician  who  would  have  ruled  in  whatever 
republic  he  might  have  had  his  birth.  But  he 
is  willing  to  see  in  Caesar  only  a  tool  of  des- 


j6  Montesquieu. 

tiny,  one  of  those  men  who  accomplish  what  is 
inevitable  without  deciding  the  great  changes 
of  empire  and  without  altering  the  course  of 
history.  "  If  Caesar  and  Pompey  had  thought 
as  Cato  did,  others  would  have  thought  with 
Caesar  and  Pompey,  and  the  doomed  Republic 
would  have  been  dragged  to  ruin  by  another 
hand." 

Thus  Montesquieu  couples  the  names  of 
Caesar  and  Pornpey,  and  he  makes  no  great 
difference  between  the  two  characters.  In  this 
regard  he  shows  the  species  of  historical  pre- 
possession by  which  Corneille  was  blinded  and 
Bossuet  influenced.  Montesquieu  tells  us  that 
"  Pompey  had  a  less  prompt  and  a  more  mod- 
erate ambition  than  Caesar's.  .  .  .  He  aspired 
to  the  dictatorship,  but  only  by  the  suffrages 
of  the  people.  He  could  not  consent  to  usurp 
power,  but  would  have  liked  to  have  it  placed 
in  his  hands."  Such  is  the  appearance  Moreau 
presents  to  us  in  his  rivalry  with  Bonaparte. 

Montesquieu  praises  Brutus,  and  even  goes 
so  far  as  to  discover  in  political  assassination 
a  sort  of  necessary  though  criminal  remedy 
for  usurpation.  He  condemns  the  Empire, 
and  yet  shows  us  that  it  was  inevitable.  He 
judges  Augustus  and  his  reign  as  would  a 
Roman  senator  who  continued  to  extol  the 
ancient  Republic  while  freely  avowing  that  it 


"  Considerations  on  the  Romans?    77 

could  not  now  be  sustained.  This  is  the 
most  eloquent  part  of  Montesquieu's  "  Con- 
siderations." 

The  taint  of  decay  was  everywhere  present 
in  Rome.  Order  was  now  no  more  than  "  un- 
broken servitude  "  calculated  "  to  make  men 
feel  the  blessedness  of  knowing  but  one  ruler." 
Tyranny  crept  in  under  the  mask  of  liberty; 
the  very  notion  of  liberty  was  sophisticated 
and  falsified.  The  principles  which  had  given 
Rome  its  strength  became  perverted  by  being 
carried  to  excess.  The  Romans  had  fought 
too  many  battles,  made  too  many  conquests. 
"  Ceaselessly  engaged  in  action,  struggle,  and 
violence,  they  wore  away  like  a  weapon  always 
in  use."  Civil  broils,  such  as  used  to  maintain 
public  spirit,  had  degenerated  into  factions 
which  perverted  it.  Wealth  corrupted  private 
morals.  Tyranny  was  founded  upon  these 
degraded  souls,  and  subjection  finally  crushed 
them.  Rome's  nerve-centre  atrophied,  her 
extremities  were  paralyzed.  Her  bulk  had 
become  unwieldy.  The  conquered  races  re- 
volted against  her  armies  scattered  along  the 
frontiers,  and  her  armies,  concentrating,  fell 
back  on  the  central  government  and  crushed 
it.  They  ceased  to  be  armies  of  citizens  from 
the  moment  when  they  usurped  the  govern- 
ment of  the  city.  The  mainspring  of  war  was 


78  Montesquieu. 

weakened  by  its  own  activity.  Rome  grew 
great  by  absorbing  conquered  races,  but  was, 
in  turn,  dissolved  in  her  conquests.  She  tried 
to  resume  her  natural  limits ;  but  that  massive 
world-force  with  which  she  overwhelmed  others 
finally  crushed  her  in  turn.  We  see  the  Em- 
pire constantly  shrinking  until  Italy  becomes 
again  the  frontier. 

Montesquieu  had  not  perceived  the  part 
religion  played  in  the  early  history  of  Rome ; 
nor  does  he,  in  the  latter  part  of  his  work, 
give  sufficient  prominence  to  the  influence  of 
Christianity.  He  is  all  admiration  for  the 
Antonines,  but  the  revolution  which  was  to 
transform  the  ancient  world  does  not  impress 
him.  On  the  other  hand,  as  he  proceeds  with 
his  picture  of  the  Empire,  economical  questions 
take  up  more  and  more  space  in  his  book. 
This  is  because  he  possessed  in  the  "  Pandects  " 
a  document  from  which  he  obtained  a  concep- 
tion of  the  social  state  of  imperial  Rome,  as 
well  as  a  knowledge  of  her  laws.  His  views 
on  the  commercial  revolutions,  the  monetary 
crises,  the  abuse  of  taxation  and  the  conse- 
quent abandonment  of  landed  estates,  the 
downfall  of  provincial  administrations,  are  so 
many  discoveries  of  his  own,  and  remain  the 
permanent  acquisitions  of  history. 

The  chapters  on  Byzantium  involved  little 


"  Considerations  on  the  Romans."     79 

more  than  a  cursory  glance  and  the  summary 
of  what  it  revealed ;  but  it  was  the  cursory 
glance  of  a  genius  and  the  summary  of  a  mas- 
terpiece. To  appreciate  the  value  and  origi- 
nality of  these  chapters  we  must  compare  them 
with  the  corresponding  chapters  of  Voltaire's 
"  Essay  on  Manners."  Voltaire's  thin  texture 
sets  off  by  contrast  all  the  strength  of  Mon- 
tesquieu's firm  web.  It  is  impossible  not  to 
suspect  some  allusion  to  the  theological  quar- 
rels of  the  eighteenth  century  in  the  irony 
with  which  Montesquieu  speaks  of  the  Byzan- 
tine Church  and  its  disputes.  His  Justinian, 
pretending  to  unity  of  law,  unity  of  reign,  and 
unity  of  faith,  borrows  more  than  one  trait 
from  Louis  XIV.  "  He  thought  he  had  increased 
the  number  of  believers,  while  he  had  only 
diminished  the  number  of  men."  He  makes  a 
more  direct  comparison  between  the  struggle 
of  Moslems  with  Greeks  and  that  of  Cromwell's 
sectaries  with  the  Irish.  As  to  later  times, 
Montesquieu  does  no  more  than  throw  out  his 
ideas,  and  he  concludes  by  showing  that  the 
Turks  inherited  the  causes  of  the  decline  of 
the  Byzantine  Empire  at  the  very  same  time 
when  they  conquered  its  capital. 

Thus  he  reaches  modern  times,  the  natural 
goal  of  his  thought,  where  it  was  to  dwell  for 
the  remainder  of  his  life. 


CHAPTER  V. 

PLAN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF   "THE  SPIRIT  OF 
THE   LAWS." 

TV  /TONTESQUIEU  was  about  forty  when 
1VJL  he  began  the  construction  of  his  great 
work.  He  had  long  been  collecting  the  ma- 
terial. "  I  may  say  that  I  have  worked  at 
it  all  my  life,"  he  wrote.  "When  I  left 
school,  law  books  were  placed  in  my  hands 
and  I  sought  to  find  their  spirit."  This  word 
"  spirit,"  which  he  was  to  affix  to  his  work, 
did  not  belong  to  him  alone.  Domat,  in  his 
"  Treatise  on  the  Laws,"  had  devoted  a  chap- 
ter to  the  "  Nature  and  Spirit  of  the  Laws,"  but 
he  meant  by  this  the  real  and  deep  meaning 
of  legislative  enactments,  "  that  spirit  which 
in  natural  laws  is  equity,  and  in  arbitrary  laws 
the  intention  of  the  legislator."  Montesquieu 
would  not  have  had  far  to  seek  for  such  a 
spirit  of  the  laws,  and  Domat  would  have  im- 
mediately supplied  him  with  it;  but  he  wished 
to  reveal  something  quite  different,  —  the 
reason  for  the  existence  and  efficacy  of  law. 


"  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws"          8 1 

The  problem  thus  propounded  ceased  to  be  le- 
gal and  became  historical.  It  was  not  enough 
to  ransack  his  inner  consciousness,  to  interro- 
gate his  reason,  and  to  analyze  the  texts  of  the 
laws ;  he  must  plunge  into  history  and  ask 
civilization  to  reveal  its  great  state  secret. 

Montesquieu  was  for  some  time  at  a  loss: 
"  I  pursued  the  subject  without  forming  a 
plan,  for  I  knew  neither  rules  nor  exceptions." 
Read  over  the  essay  "  Of  Custom,"  in  Mon- 
taigne, and  you  will  gain  an  idea  of  the  notes 
Montesquieu  had  gathered  from  all  sources 
and  accumulated  in  drawers.  Montaigne  scat- 
ters such  notes  at  random,  taking  a  secret 
pleasure  in  printing  them  in  a  disorder  which 
appears  to  him  in  the  highest  degree  like 
Nature.  He  glories  in  this  medley  of  men  and 
things,  of  times,  countries,  and  governments, 
of  stories,  legends,  witticisms,  and  fine  maxims. 
He  has  no  trouble  in  deducing  from  this  hu- 
man miscellany  something  wherewith  to  hu- 
miliate man  and  to  tear  his  robes  to  tatters. 
There  is  not  a  line  in  the  essay  but  exhibits 
the  infirmity  of  our  reason  and  the  wretched 
contradictions  of  our  judgment.  This  strange 
arsenal  that  Montaigne  constructed  to  dis- 
quiet man  and  to  unsettle  every  basis  of  cer- 
tainty, Pascal  appropriates  to  revive  men's 
faith.  In  an  incomparable  demonstration  by 
6 


82  Montesquieu. 

means  of  the  absurd,  Pascal  overwhelms  the 
human  intelligence  in  order  to  reduce  it  to 
nothingness  before  God.  Montesquieu  is  not 
content  with  the  diffuse  and  desultory  reason 
of  Montaigne,  and  is  not  resigned  to  the  baf- 
fled and  prostrate  reason  of  Pascal.  He  must 
have  an  explanation,  and  one  of  human  origin. 
"  First  I  observed  men,  and  thought  that  in 
this  boundless  diversity  of  laws  and  manners 
they  were  not  guided  merely  by  their  fancy." 
The  search  for  the  idea  which  guides  them  is 
the  work  not  merely  of  the  investigator  but  of 
the  legislator  and  friend  of  humanity.  Mon- 
tesquieu does  not  separate  these  two  elements. 
He  regards  men  as  "  rogues  individually,  but 
good  honest  people  as  a  whole."  In  his  opin- 
ion it  holds  in  life  as  upon  the  stage,  that  only 
noble  actions  are  applauded  and  only  good 
precepts  universally  agreed  to.  He  aims  to 
work  in  the  interest  of  all,  his  object  being  "to 
instruct  men."  He  wishes  to  enter  each  state 
and  become  a  citizen  of  it  in  order  to  give 
each  nation  the  reason  for  its  customs  and 
maxims,  to  make  each  man  love  his  country 
and  government  better,  to  teach  the  people 
how  states  are  imperilled  and  how  they  are 
preserved.  He  writes  for  the  man  that  he 
fashions  in  his  own  image,  "  the  man,"  in  his 
words,  "  who  seeks  the  public  good ; "  and  he 


"  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws"          83 

•r 

considers  that   "  the  public    good,  like  moral 
good,  is  found  between  two  extremes." 

Though  he  has  all  mankind  in  view,  yet  he 
gives  special  attention  to  France.  He  sees  it 
inclining  toward  despotism,  and  is  apprehen- 
sive lest  despotism  may  lead  to  anarchy ;  that 
is,  to  the  most  terrible  form  of  decline.  He 
wishes  to  warn  his  fellow-countrymen,  to  re- 
animate their  love  of  liberty,  to  rediscover  and 
restore  their  title  to  citizenship.  After  having 
shown  the  designs  of  God  in  the  world,  Bos- 
suet  deduces  from  these  same  designs  the 
teaching  which  was  to  serve  both  as  a  founda- 
tion for  the  Christian  monarchy  and  a  lesson 
to  his  "  Most  Christian  King."  Montesquieu, 
having  shown  how  a  great  social  institution 
was  organized,  how  it  increased,  prospered, 
declined,  and  went  to  ruin,  wishes  in  his  turn 
to  draw  a  lesson  from  it  for  all  human  legis- 
lation. He  meditated  a  purely  scientific  work, 
which  should  be  to  his  "  Considerations  on  the 
Romans"  what  Bossuet's  "  Politics  derived  from 
Holy  Writ  "  is  to  his  "  Discourse  on  Universal 
History."  This  is  the  noblest  enterprise  a 
legislator  could  undertake,  but  also  the  bold- 
est and  most  difficult.  Montesquieu,  when  he 
had  executed  it,  could  proudly  write  this  motto 
for  his  work :  Prolem  sine  matre  creatam,  — 
"  A  work  without  a  predecessor." 


84  Montesquieu 

His  difficulty  was  not  the  lack  of  material,  of 
which  there  was  such  an  immense  amount  that 
it  escaped  his  grasp  from  its  very  immensity ; 
it  was  the  lack  of  tools  to  work  with,  the  sieve 
and  the  scales  to  collect,  test,  and  weigh  the 
components.  Montesquieu  did  not  tarry  long 
to  examine  these  components  by  themselves 
and  investigate  their  origin.  Later  on  he  was 
to  say,  speaking  of  himself,  "  He  does  not  talk 
of  causes  and  does  not  compare  causes ;  but 
he  talks  of  effects  and  compares  effects."  The 
religious  basis  on  which  Domat's  "  Treatise  on 
the  Laws  "  is  erected,  concealed  from  Montes- 
quieu the  depth  and  solidity  of  that  writer's 
teachings.  Domat  harmonizes  his  observations 
with  his  faith ;  the  transposition  of  a  few  terms 
would  be  enough  to  deprive  of  its  mystic 
veil  this  work  in  reality  so  practical.  Rebel- 
ling against  Domat's  mysticism,  Montesquieu 
rebels  none  the  less  against  Hobbes's  material- 
ism. He  recognizes  an  eternal  justice  inde- 
pendent of  human  conventions:  "Before  laws 
were  made,  the  relations  of  justice  were  possi- 
ble. To  say  that  there  is  nothing  just  or  unjust 
except  what  positive  laws  command  or  pro- 
hibit, is  to  say  that  before  the  circle  was  traced 
all  the  radii  were  not  equal." 

As  Montesquieu  had  failed  to  have  recourse 
to  archaeology  and  textual  criticism  in  his  study 


"  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws"          85 

of  primitive  Rome,  so  now,  in  like  manner,  he 
failed  to  utilize  anthropology  in  his  study  of 
primitive  society.  Why  could  he  not  have 
read  Buffon  ?  The  "  Seventh  Epoch  of  Nature  " 
would  have  explained  primitive  humanity  and 
the  origin  of  customs  to  him  in  a  very  simple 
way :  — 

"  The  first  men,  witnesses  of  the  recent  and 
still  very  frequent  convulsions  of  the  earth, 
having  no  refuge  from  floods  but  the  moun- 
tains, and  often  driven  from  these  places  of 
refuge  by  volcanic  fires,  trembling  while  the 
earth  trembled  beneath  their  feet,  naked  both 
in  body  and  in  mind,  exposed  to  the  violence 
of  the  elements,  victims  of  the  fury  of  wild 
beasts  whose  prey  they  could  not  avoid  be- 
coming, all  shuddering  alike  with  the  common 
thrill  of  mortal  terror,  all  equally  hard  pressed 
by  necessity,  —  were  speedily  driven  to  unite: 
first,  to  defend -themselves  by  numbers;  next, 
to  aid  each  other  by  laboring  together  to  make 
weapons  and  to  construct  a  dwelling-place." 

Montesquieu  has  only  given  us  an  imperfect 
glimpse  of  the  truth.  For  lack  of  clear  ideas 
he  lets  his  imagination  have  free  play.  He 
allows  himself  to  conceive  of  a  state  of  nature 
in  which  timid,  weak,  and  amorous  savages 
enjoyed  a  sort  of  brute  contentment.  Peace 
was  in  his  opinion  the  first  law  of  humanity ; 


86  Montesquieu. 

war  was  the  second,  and  began  from  the  time 
when  the  societies  into  which  men  had  grouped 
themselves  began  their  struggle  for  existence ; 
as  if  the  social  instinct  which  inclines  men  to 
love  their  fellows  and  to  unite  with  them  was 
not  as  primordial  as  the  selfish  instinct  which 
inclines  them  to  quarrel  and  hate.  Montes- 
quieu remains  perplexed  and  confused  about 
this  great  subject.  A  few  lines  from  one  of 
his  "  Persian  Letters "  present  perhaps,  after 
all,  the  clearest  statement  he  has  made  with 
regard  to  it :  "I  never  heard  a  discourse  upon 
public  law  which  was  not  ushered  in  by  a  care- 
ful investigation  of  the  origin  of  society.  This 
seems  to  me  absurd.  If  men  did  not  associate 
together,  if  they  parted  and  fled  from  one  an- 
other, it  would  be  necessary  to  ask  the  reason 
and  to  investigate  why  they  remain  apart ;  but 
their  very  birth  connects  them  together ;  a  son 
is  born  by  his  father's  side,  and  remains  there, 
—  this  is  society,  and  the  cause  of  society." 

Yet  as  he  absolutely  must  present  an  opinion 
and  adopt  a  formula,  he  takes  refuge  in  the 
vaguest  and  most  general  one.  "Laws,  in  the 
widest  sense  of  the  term,  are  the  necessary 
relations  derived  from  the  nature  of  things." 
He  rightly  intimates  that  this  definition  is  very 
wide.  It  is  so  wide  that  it  eludes  analysis  and 
reaches  out  toward  infinity.  It  is  an  algebraic 


"  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws"          87 

formula,  applying  to  all  real  quantities  and 
expressing  none  of  them  exactly.  It  is  rigor- 
ously true  of  mathematical  and  natural  laws ; 
its  application  to  political  and  civil  laws  is  only 
remote  and  rather  indistinct.  To  ascertain  this 
application  we  must  pass  through  the  whole 
course  of  change  and  perversion  in  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  "law"  itself.  Montesquieu 
does  not  hesitate  at  this  difficulty.  He  lays 
down  his  formula,  leaps  over  all  intermedi- 
ate ideas,  and  reaches  his  subject,  —  legislation 
properly  so  called. 

Here,  facts  are  his  masters ;  but  the  facts 
overwhelm  and  stifle  him.  He  may  be  seen 
laboring  on  with  difficulty,  straying  from  his 
course,  returning  to  it  wearied,  setting  forth 
on  his  journey,  and  straying  again.  "  Many 
times  I  began,  and  many  times  abandoned  this 
work;  a  thousand  times  I  scattered  to  the 
winds  the  leaves  I  had  written.  ...  I  found 
truth  only  to  lose  it"  At  last  he  sighted  the 
pole-star.  He  found  his  path,  and  had  only 
to  advance  toward  the  light. 

We  are  authorized  in  placing  this  critical 
epoch  in  Montesquieu's  career  at  about  the 
year  1729.  He  then  discovered  what  he  called 
"  the  majesty  of  my  subject,"  and  was  of  opin- 
ion that  henceforth,  if  he  could  maintain  this 
loftiness  of  view,  he  should  see  "  the  laws  as 


88  Montesquieu. 

they  issued  from  their  fountain-head."  "  When 
I  discovered  my  principles,  all  that  I  sought 
came  to  me.  ...  I  laid  down  my  principles 
and  saw  the  particular  cases  fall  into  smooth 
conformity  with  them."  Let  us  take  time  to 
examine  these  principles ;  they  furnish  the  key 
to  the  work. 

"  Men  are  governed  by  various  things,  — 
climate,  religion,  laws,  governmental  maxims, 
precedents,  morals,  manners;  and  from  all  of 
these  is  formed,  as  a  resultant,  the  general  so- 
cial spirit."  These  elements  making  up  all 
human  society,  and  this  general  spirit  animat- 
ing it,  are  connected,  and  form  a  single  entity. 
It  is  not  a  fortuitous  aggregation  of  lifeless 
materials;  it  is  a  living  organism.  The  laws 
are  the  nerves  of  this  body  politic ;  they  must 
correspond  to  the  nature  and  uses  of  the  organs 
they  animate.  They  are  dependent  on  certain 
elements  which  man  cannot  change,  and  on 
certain  others  which  he  can  change  only  after 
many  efforts,  and  very  slowly. 

"  They  must  have  relations  to  the  physical 
characteristics  of  a  country,  to  the  climate,  — 
frigid,  torrid,  or  temperate,  —  to  the  nature  of 
the  land,  its  situation,  its  extent,  to  the  people's 
mode  of  life ;  .  .  .  they  must  have  relations  to 
the  degree  of  liberty  that  the  constitution  can 
admit  of;  to  the  religion  of  the  inhabitants, 


"  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws?          89 

their  inclinations,  their  wealth,  their  number, 
their  commerce,  their  morals,  their  manners. 
Finally,  they  have  relations  one  to  another,  to 
their  origin,  to  the  aim  of  the  legislator,  to  the 
order  of  things  under  which  they  were  estab- 
lished. They  must  be  considered  from  all 
these  points  of  view,  and  I  undertake  so  to 
consider  them  in  this  work.  I  shall  examine 
all  these  relations ;  together  they  form  what  I 
have  called  the  Spirit  of  the  Laws." 

The  social  institution  thus  considered  ap- 
pears to  Montesquieu  the  very  soul  of  hu- 
man society.  If  this  soul  is  vigorous  and  sound, 
society  prospers ;  if  it  is  weak  and  corrupted, 
society  is  dissolved.  Upon  men's  comprehen- 
sion of  this  social  fabric,  upon  the  skill  with 
which  it  is  established  or  sustained,  depend 
the  reforms  that  regenerate  society  and  the 
revolutions  that  overwhelm  it.  Moreover,  there 
is  no  sort  of  constitution  which  is,  in  itself, 
superior  to  others.  There  are  conditions  of 
existence,  public  and  private  morals,  a  national 
spirit,  a  general  tendency,  to  which  every  con- 
stitution is  subordinate.  The  best  and  most 
legitimate  for  each  nation  is  that  which  is 
most  appropriate  to  the  character  and  tradi- 
tions of  the  people  for  which  it  is  designed. 

From  this  point  of  view  Montesquieu  ex- 
amines the  different  kinds  of  government,  and 


90  Montesquieu. 

distinguishes  in  each  its  nature  and  its  princi- 
ple. The  nature  of  the  government  is  what 
gives  it  existence ;  its  principle  is  what  gives 
it  activity.  To  define  the  nature  of  a  govern- 
ment is  to  determine  its  structure ;  to  define 
its  principle  is  to  analyze  the  morals  and  pas- 
sions of  the  men  who  practise  it. 

From  the  nature  of  governments,  Montes- 
quieu divides  them  into  republican,  monarchi- 
cal, and  despotic.  If  the  people  as  a  whole, 
or  a  part  of  the  people,  is  sovereign,  we  have 
democracy  or  aristocracy;  if  the  power  is 
exercised  by  one  alone  in  accordance  with 
fixed  and  stable  laws,  we  have  monarchy; 
if  it  is  exercised  arbitrarily  at  the  will  or  ca- 
price of  the  sovereign  alone,  we  have  despot- 
ism. This  classification  has  been  objected 
to.  Montesquieu  confounds  the  constitution 
of  the  state,  which  can  be  either  autocratic, 
oligarchic,  aristocratic,  or  democratic,  with  the 
government  of  the  state,  which  is  necessarily 
either  monarchical  or  republican.  These  fun- 
damental types  of  constitution  and  government 
may  combine  and  produce  mixed  systems. 
But  there  is  no  need  here  of  insisting  upon 
these  distinctions.  To  Montesquieu  they  are 
only  a  framework,  and  the  important  thing  is 
to  see  how  he  has  arranged  his  picture. 

In  it  we  notice  two  main  groups :  the  laws 


"  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws'.'          91 

resulting  from  the  nature  of  government,  — 
these  are  the  political  laws ;  and  those  result- 
ing from  the  principle  of  government,  —  these 
are,  more  particularly,  the  civil  and  social  laws. 
Montesquieu  displays  the  causes  of  the  dura- 
tion and  decay  of  each  class.  "  The  decline 
of  every  government  almost  always  begins  on 
the  side  of  its  principles."  It  is  on  this  sub- 
ject that  he  rises  to  his  highest  point,  and  that 
he  gives  us,  in  truth,  the  very  essence  of  his 
thought,  the  great  and  serviceable  counsel  of 
his  work.  "  Custom,"  Pascal  had  said  after 
reading  Montaigne,  "  by  the  very  fact  of  being 
received,  creates  all  equity,  and  is  the  mystic 
basis  of  its  authority  ;  he  who  refers  law  to 
its  origin  annihilates  it."  Law  is  derived  from 
the  nature  of  things,  replies  Montesquieu;  the 
necessity  for  its  existence  is  the  basis  of  its 
authority ;  he  who  refers  it  to  its  origin 
strengthens  it.  Montesquieu's  view  is  the 
more  just  and  the  more  profound. 

The  study  of  governments  fills  the  first 
eight  books  of  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws." 
Montesquieu  passes  from  fundamental  laws  to 
subordinate  enactments,  and  considers  them 
successively  in  their  different  relations  to  the 
defence  of  the  state,  to  the  political  liberty  of 
citizens,  to  taxes,  climate,  land,  morals,  man- 
ners, civil  liberty,  population,  and  religion. 


92  Montesquieu. 

Such  is  the  object  of  Books  IX.  to  XXVI. 
Books  XXVII.  to  XXXI.,  whatever  importance 
they  may  have  in  themselves,  form  a  mere 
supplement  devoted  to  an  essay  on  the  Roman 
laws  concerning  inheritance,  and  to  an  unfin- 
ished history  of  feudal  laws  in  France.  In 
reality,  the  work  ends  with  Book  XXVI.  The 
strong  coherence  which  gives  the  work  the 
stamp  of  majesty  is  completely  felt  only  in 
the  first  part.  In  the  development  of  the 
later  books  the  chain  of  connection  becomes 
weaker,  and  digressions  multiply. 

The  reason  for  this  is  that,  however  vast 
Montesquieu's  genius,  it  could  not  embrace  in 
one  connected  whole  the  formidable  mass  of 
notes  gathered  during  thirty  years'  reading. 
Though  the  frame  was  so  large,  the  picture 
was  larger;  the  canvas  projects  at  the  sides 
and  swells  out  in  places  on  the  surface. 
Montesquieu  perceived  this.  So  long  as  he 
worked  upon  the  earlier  books  he  was  all  joy 
and  ardor.  "  My  great  work  is  going  forward 
with  giant  strides,"  he  wrote  in  1744  to  the 
Abbe  Guasco.  Then  was  the  time  when  "  all 
he  sought  came  to  him  of  itself."  But  little 
by  little  masses  of  facts  accumulated  at  the 
outlets  and  blocked  them  up.  He  forces  the 
facts.  "  Everything  yields  to  my  principles," 
he  wrote  toward  the  last ;  but  he  does  not  see 


"  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws,  "         93 

"  particular  cases  smoothly  conforming  to 
them,"  as  formerly.  He  makes  an  effort,  can- 
vasses the  texts,  arrays  analogies,  heaps  up, 
but  he  no  longer  welds  together.  He  settles 
himself  doggedly  to  the  task;  he  grows  fa- 
tigued. "  I  am  reaching  an  advanced  age ; 
and  because  of  the  vastness  of  the  undertaking 
the  work  recedes,"  he  wrote  in  1745  ;  and  in 
1747,  "  My  work  grows  dull.  ...  I  am  over- 
come by  weariness."  The  concluding  books 
on  feudalism  exhaust  him.  "  This  will  make 
three  hours'  reading;  but  I  assure  you  that 
the  labor  it  has  cost  me  has  whitened  my 
hair."  "  This  work  has  almost  killed  me,"  he 
wrote,  after  revising  the  final  proofs ;  "  I  am 
going  to  rest;  I  shall  labor  no  more." 

This  fatigue  made  him  especially  anxious 
about  the  perfection  of  his  work.  He  had 
written,  to  be  placed  at  the  beginning  of  the 
second  volume,  before  Book  XX.,  an  invoca- 
tion to  the  Muses,  in  which  this  sentiment  is 
expressed  in  some  of  those  exquisite  phrases, 
wholly  antique  in  form  and  wholly  fresh  in 
thought,  that  give  us  a  foretaste  of  Andr6 
Chenier's  prose:  "Virgins  of  the  Pierian 
mount,  do  you  hear  my  invocation?  Inspire 
and  hearten  me.  The  race  is  long  and  I  am 
sad  and  weary.  Instil  into  my  spirit  the 
sweetness  and  delight  which  once  I  knew  and 


94  Montesquieu. 

which  are  now  so  far  from  me.  ...  If  you 
will  not  soften  the  ruggedness  of  my  task,  con- 
ceal at  least  all  trace  of  labor;  let  me  not 
appear  to  teach,  and  yet  let  my  reader  be 
instructed;  let  what  is  strenuously  carved  by 
thought  seem  but  the  bloom  of  feeling.  .  .  . 
The  waters  of  your  fountain,  springing  from 
the  rock  you  love  to  haunt,  do  not  rise  in  air 
merely  to  fall  again;  they  flow  through  the 
gladdened  meadow." 

The  artist  in  Montesquieu  was  as  exacting 
as  the  thinker.  The  literary  composition  of 
the  work  gave  him  as  much  anxiety  as  his 
method  and  his  search  for  principles.  He  de- 
sired perfect  order  in  the  book,  but  an  order 
which  steals  into  the  reader's  mind  without 
imposing  a  burden  upon  his  attention ;  and 
with  it  a  ceaseless  variety  in  the  movement  of 
the  style  in  order  to  divert  the  reader  from  the 
monotony  of  the  route  and  the  weight  of  the 
baggage.  He  was  less  anxious  "  to  be  read 
than  to  stimulate  thought."  He  always  de- 
sired to  leave  something  to  be  guessed,  that  the 
reader  might  be  complimented  and  his  discern- 
ment be  flattered,  by  thus  becoming  a  partner 
in  the  work.  "  We  remember,"  he  says  some- 
where, "  what  we  have  seen,  and  begin  to  im- 
agine what  we  shall  see;  the  mind  is  elated 
with  a  sense  of  capaciousness  and  penetra- 


"  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws."          95 

tion."  He  is  a  master,  and  an  incomparable 
master,  in  the  art  of  planning  by-paths,  of 
opening  up  vistas,  of  making  the  most  of 
resting-places,  of  distributing  clumps  of  trees 
and  grassy  seats.  When  the  way  is  level  and 
easy,  he  discloses  all  points  of  the  compass  at 
a  glance ;  when  it  is  steep  and  difficult,  he 
keeps  his  views  in  reserve  and  allures  by  an- 
ticipation. He  knows  wonderfully  well  the 
fashionable  people  for  whom  he  writes,  their 
impatient  curiosity,  their  desultory  way  of 
reading,  their  dread  of  fatigue,  their  desire  to 
reach  the  goal,  their  haste  to  leave  it  when 
once  reached,  and  their  constantly  extempo- 
rized reflections.  Hence  all  the  divisions  and 
subdivisions  of  the  book,  —  those  chapters 
which  state  a  great  problem  in  three  lines, 
those  multiplied  titles  and  subtitles,  the  con- 
tinual reminders  to  the  fugitive  memory,  the 
sauce  for  palling  curiosity,  the  constant  appeal 
to  the  frivolous.  He  interrupts  himself,  in- 
terrogates his  readers,  begs  pardon,  so  to  say, 
for  keeping  them  so  long,  and  asks  them  still 
to  follow  him :  "  I  must  turn  to  the  right  and 
to  the  left  till  I  find  my  way  out  and  reach  the 
light.  ...  I  should  like  to  float  upon  a  tranquil 
stream,  but  am  carried  away  by  a  torrent." 

Montesquieu   was    absent-minded ;     he   had 
weak   eyes   and   short   breath.     He   dictated, 


96  Montesquieu. 

and  conversed  while  dictating.  His  mode  of 
expression  was  formed  from  his  very  nature. 
"  I  see,"  said  he,  "  that  some  people  are 
shocked  at  digressions;  but  it  seems  to  me 
that  those  who  know  how  to  make  them  are 
like  those  who  have  long  arms :  they  reach  far- 
ther." Montesquieu's  digressions  sometimes 
transcend  due  limits,  but  it  is  not  safe  to 
ignore  either  their  art  or  their  value.  Com- 
pare "  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws  "  with  "  Democ- 
racy in  America."  There  is  the  same  inner 
structure  in  both  works,  the  same  elevation  of 
thought,  the  same  breadth  of  view.  Whence 
comes  that  degree  of  tension  and  austerity, 
that  sort  of  Jansenistic  melancholy  permeat- 
ing Tocqueville's  book,  in  marked  contrast 
to  the  easy  manner,  the  cheerful  and  affable 
style,  which  so  adorn  Montesquieu's  pages  ? 
It  comes  from  the  fact  that  Tocqueville  is  from 
Normandy,  a  foggy  land,  from  whose  moist 
valleys  you  look  out  upon  a  sea  forever  storm- 
tossed.  He  is  a  man  of  but  one  task  and  one 
purpose ;  he  no  more  sought  diversion  for  the 
mind  in  reading,  than  he  wasted  his  time  in  dis- 
sipating amusements.  He  lacks  vagrant  eru- 
dition, chance  anecdotes,  witty  sallies  coming 
one  knows  not  whence,  —  in  a  word,  spright- 
liness  and  color;  he  is  not  of  the  tribe  of 
Montaigne. 


"  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws"          97 

The  division  —  one  might  almost  say  the 
mincing  —  of  Montesquieu's  books  and  chap- 
ters is  found  even  in  his  sentence  structure. 
It  is  brisk,  sometimes  too  concise.  Montes- 
quieu likes  to  fling  his  darts,  but  he  soon  loses 
breath.  As  he  multiplies  the  darts,  he  multi- 
plies the  pauses.  Buffon  —  himself  broad  of 
chest  and  sound  in  wind,  unable  to  break  up 
his  paragraphs  or  cut  down  his  phrases,  seeing 
everything  in  great  movements,  by  epochs, 
in  majestic  ebb  and  flow  like  the  sea  —  re- 
proached Montesquieu  with  this  constant  frag- 
mentariness  of  thought  and  style.  "  Because 
of  this,"  said  he,  in  his  famous  address  to  the 
Academy,  "  the  book  appears  clearer  to  the 
eye,  but  the  author's  design  remains  obscure." 
This  is  hypercriticism.  It  is  not  obscurity 
that  should  be  criticised  in  Montesquieu,  but 
rather  an  excessive  concentration  of  light  and 
a  continual  play  of  converging  lenses  upon 
certain  points.  Madame  du  Deffand  for  the 
sake  of  a  jest,1  and  Voltaire  out  of  professional 
jealousy,  reproached  him  with  having  put  too 

1  The  witticism  is  well  known  to  all  readers  of  French. 
It  turns  upon  the  fact  that  the  word  esprit  (spirit)  means  also 
"wit."  Madame  du  Deffand  had  to  change  but  a  word  in 
the  title  of  Montesquieu's  great  work  (L'Esprit  des  Lois) 
to  make  it  mean  "Wit  upon  the  Laws"  (L'Esprit  sur  les 
Lois).  — TR. 

7 


98  Montesquieu. 

much  wit  into  his  book.  He  had  to  make  up 
for  the  lack  of  wit  in  all  the  authors  who  had 
written  on  legislation  before  him,  and  in  most 
of  those  who  have  written  since.  If  he  needed 
an  excuse,  posterity  would  accept  this  one. 

Let  us  acknowledge,  nevertheless,  that 
though  there  is  an  infinite  amount  of  art  in 
"The  Spirit  of  the  Laws,"  and  exquisite  art 
too,  there  is  also  some  artifice.  Montesquieu 
felt  himself  forced  into  it  in  order  to  cajole  the 
censors,  to  baffle  the  Sorbonne,  and  to  secure 
free  circulation  for  his  book  throughout  France 
without  imperilling  his  own  peace  of  mind. 
He  disliked  to  be  obliged  to  disavow  his  work, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  "  Persian  Letters."  As 
he  was  doing  the  work  of  the  moralist,  and  no 
longer  that  of  the  satirist,  he  was  anxious  to 
have  the  public  honor  of  it.  To  the  license 
and  irreverence  of  his  youth  had  succeeded 
the  respectful  tone  of  a  man  taking  life  seri- 
ously, and  devoting  himself  to  the  task  of 
instructing  mankind.  Not  that  the  freethink- 
ing  tone  has  entirely  disappeared.  It  becomes 
noticeable  here  and  there,  especially  in  the 
digressions,  and  when  the  plan  of  the  book 
leads  the  author  to  Oriental  countries  and 
polygamous  morals.  These  are  only  episodes ; 
and  though  lingering  over  them  with  some 
fondness,  Montesquieu  does  not  linger  long. 


"  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws?          99 

But  though  infidelity  has  disappeared,  no  ex- 
clusive tone  of  veneration  has  taken  its  place. 
Montesquieu  treats  religions  with  gravity,  as 
he  does  all  human  institutions.  In  his  "  Con- 
siderations upon  the  Romans,"  he  had,  as  it 
were,  banished  Providence  from  history;  he 
does  not  divorce  religion  from  society,  but  he 
places  it  among  the  various  elements  of  social 
life,  after  the  army,  after  the  political  constitu- 
tion, after  climate,  soil,  morals,  along  with  com- 
merce, population,  and  police.  This  accords 
neither  with  the  true  historical  proportions, 
nor  with  just  estimates  of  social  life;  more- 
over, this  is  by  no  means  the  teaching  of  the 
Church;  but  it  is  really  the  spirit  of  the 
book,  and  this  spirit  is  opposed  to  orthodoxy. 
Montesquieu  well  knew  this;  he  was  far 
from  agreeing  with  Rome  and  the  Sorbonne, 
and  the  circumstance  did  not  fail  to  disturb 
him. 

He  tried  to  conform  to  the  rules  and  to  take 
precautions.  He  had  no  choice  of  means,  and 
employed  those  which  Montaigne  had  used 
and  which  Buffon  was  soon  to  use.  He  scat- 
tered here  and  there  through  his  book  re- 
strictive phrases,  learned  reservations,  and 
high-sounding  professions  of  faith.  These 
formed  an  impertinent  excrescence  upon  the 
body  of  his  discourse;  but  taken  alone,  de- 


ioo  Montesquieu. 

tached  and  extracted,  they  were  intended  to 
remove  all  suspicions  as  to  the  author's  teach- 
ings. Montaigne  had  employed  this  literary 
subterfuge  with  ironical  and  sceptical  good- 
humor.  Buffon  brought  to  it  a  lofty  and  easy 
manner  suited  to  delude  the  simple.  Montes- 
quieu, less  indifferent  than  Montaigne  to  the 
pledges  he  made,  and  less  bold  than  Buffon  in 
confronting  those  in  authority,  employed  it 
with  a  sort  of  awkward  timidity,  savoring  of 
cant  phraseology,  caricature,  and  extravagance. 
No  one  could  be  deceived  by  such  shifts.  He 
placed  "  the  true  religion,"  he  declared,  apart 
from  all  the  rest;  but  this  reservation  was 
merely  parenthetical,  and  through  the  whole 
body  of  the  book  he  spoke  of  it  as  of  the 
rest,  —  namely,  in  the  tone  of  a  layman,  a 
statesman,  and  a  legislator.  He  admitted 
that  some  religions  were  of  more  or  less 
use,  and  that  the  most  perfect,  the  "  revealed 
religion  itself,  .  .  .  which  has  its  root  in 
heaven,"  produced  more  or  less  happy  effects 
according  to  the  countries  where  it  was  propa- 
gated and  the  men  who  practised  it.  "  When 
Montezuma  so  obstinately  insisted  that  the 
religion  of  the  Spaniards  was  good  for  their 
country,  and  that  of  the  Mexicans  for  his,  he 
did  not  utter  an  absurdity."  But  he  pro- 
nounced a  heretical  opinion;  and  though 


"  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws''        101 

Montezuma  could  not  be  expected  to  know 
this,  Montesquieu  was  quite  aware  of  it 

Yet  he  hoped  that  the  censors  would  be 
satisfied,  so  far  as  the  faith  was  concerned, 
with  these  verbal  reservations.  He  thought 
that  as  to  politics  they  would  show  themselves 
more  exacting.  He  suppressed,  as  too  open 
to  suspicion,  a  chapter  on  the  royal  warrants 
for  arbitrary  imprisonment  or  banishment.1 
He  skilfully  veiled  observations  which  might 
appear  seditious,  and  comparisons  which  would 
perhaps  shock  the  patriotism  of  fools.  It  may 
be  that  this  is  one  reason  why  he  described  in 
a  wholly  general  and  cosmopolitan  way,  with- 
out a  trace  of  technical  terms  or  proper  names, 
the  merely  local  phenomenon  of  England's 
constitution.  He  seems  to  be  summing  up 
the  results  of  numerous  observations  regarding 
different  countries,  and  referring  to  a  common 
type  a  number  of  similar  institutions ;  and  this 
generalization,  so  arbitrary  in  itself,  has  often 
been  considered  the  result  of  prudence.  In 
other  cases  he  proceeds  by  suggestion.  The 
chapter  entitled  "  Fatal  Consequences  of  Lux- 
ury in  China  "  is  simply  a  "  Chinese  Letter;  " 
he  talks  of  none  but  Frenchmen. 

There  is  no  more  singular  instance  of  these 
oratorical  precautions  than  the  chapter  —  one 
1  Lettres  de  cachet 


IO2  Montesquieu. 

of  the  profoundest  in  the  book  —  in  which 
Montesquieu  explains  "  how  the  laws  may 
co-operate  in  forming  the  morals,  manners, 
and  character  of  a  nation."  England  alone  is 
concerned,  and  Montesquieu  does  not  once  men- 
tion that  country.  He  represents  the  case  as 
hypothetical,  and  this  mode  of  reasoning  leads 
to  strange  circumlocutions  like  the  following: 

"  If  this  nation  lived  in  an  island,  it  would 
not  seek  conquests,  because  isolated  conquests 
would  weaken  it.  ...  If  this  nation  was  situated 
toward  the  north  and  had  a  great  many  super- 
fluous commodities,  since  it  would  also  lack 
a  great  many  articles  which  its  climate  would 
refuse,  it  would  carry  on  a  necessary  and  ex- 
tensive trade  with  southern  countries.  ...  It 
might  be  that  it  had  at  some  time  subjugated 
a  neighboring  nation  which  by  its  favorable 
situation,  excellent  harbors,  and  the  nature  of 
its  wealth,  had  caused  jealousy;  so  that  al- 
though the  conquerors  should  have  given  it 
their  own  laws,  it  would  be  held  in  complete 
dependence." 

Here  is  seen  the  excess,  the  strain,  and  the 
abuse  of  the  process.  By  wishing  to  refine 
upon  insinuations  and  to  speak  in  riddles  to 
the  knowing,  Montesquieu  attains  the  worst 
results, —  he  becomes  embarrassed  and  heavy 
in  his  very  subtlety.  How  much  greater  he  is 


"  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws''        103 

when  he  dares  to  be  himself,  and  to  call  things 
by  their  right  names  !  Why  did  he  not  write 
all  of  that  profound  study  of  England's  politi- 
cal morals  with  the  same  pen  which,  a  few 
pages  farther  on,  exhibits  in  masterly  strokes 
the  "  Spirit  of  England  in  respect  to  Com- 
merce " :  "  Other  nations  have  made  their 
commercial  interests  give  way  to  politics; 
England  has  always  made  political  interests 
give  way  to  commerce.  No  other  people  in 
the  world  has  equal  reason  to  boast  of  possess- 
ing at  one  and  the  same  time  these  three 
great  things,  —  religion,  commerce,  and  lib- 
erty." Instead  of  a  picture  in  the  style  of 
Paul  Veronese,  as  Voltaire  has  finely  said,  —  a 
picture  "with  brilliant  colors,  ease  of  manner, 
and  some  defects  in  costume,"  —  Montesquieu 
might  have  left  a  painting  like  one  of  Rem- 
brandt's, a  luminous  and  concentrated  image 
of  reality. 

If  Montesquieu  sometimes  generalizes  in 
this  way  out  of  circumspection,  he  does  it  of- 
tener  out  of  taste  and  the  coquetry  of  wit.  A 
shade  of  mystery  in  one's  language  is  a  mark 
of  breeding,  and  sets  off  a  subject  in  itself  un- 
promising and  difficult.  Generalization,  which 
is  sometimes  a  discreet  veil  to  his  thought,  is 
more  often  its  stage  drapery,  —  and  it  is  the 
fashionable  drapery.  Montesquieu  naturally 


1 04  Montesquieu. 

clothes  his  ideas  with  it  by  a  mental  tendency 
which  he  shares  with  his  contemporaries  and 
by  a  secret  inclination  to  flatter  their  caprices. 
He  has  his  own  vocabulary  and  his  own  rhetoric. 
To  read  him  intelligently  we  should  familiarize 
ourselves  with  his  words  and  his  figures  of 
speech.  As  for  the  words,  the  task  is  easy: 
he  is  an  excellent  writer,  and  never  employs  a 
word  without  a  full  sense  of  its  meaning;  once 
possessed  of  his  usage,  we  always  know  what 
he  means.  The  application  of  his  figures  is 
more  uncertain :  we  need  sometimes  to  make 
transpositions,  to  put  two  things  together,  to 
guess  his  riddles,  to  translate  fine  general  prop- 
ositions into  individual  names  and  cases,  —  but 
all  this  must  be  done  with  a  great  deal  of 
prudence. 

We  should  make  ourselves  liable  to  serious 
mistakes,  disparage  Montesquieu,  and  miss  his 
purpose,  if  we  applied  to  the  whole  work  a 
system  of  interpretation  authorized  only  in 
certain  very  special  and  particular  instances. 
Montesquieu  has  a  genius  for  generalization, — 
this  is  his  strength  and  his  weakness.  Let  us 
take  him  for  what  he  professes  to  be.  Let  us 
read  the  book  as  it  stands,  without  commen- 
tary and  almost  without  notes.  Montesquieu 
had  his  reasons  for  publishing  so  few  of  the 
innumerable  notes  he  had  gathered.  If  in 


"  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws''        105 

several  passages  he  wished  the  reader  to  say, 
"This  is  England,"  or  "This  is  Versailles,"  he 
also  meant  the  reader  to  think,  regarding  the 
same  passages,  "  The  conditions  being  the 
same,  this  is  what  will  happen  wherever  people 
act  as  they  do  in  England  or  at  Versailles." 
Montesquieu  wished  to  present  his  types  in 
such  a  way  that  they  might  apply  to  different 
cases ;  the  reader  was  not  to  know  precisely 
whether  he  had  Rome,  Athens,  or  Sparta  be- 
fore his  eyes, — he  was  simply  to  feel  himself 
in  the  presence  of  democracy  and  in  the  heart 
of  the  republic.  Similarly,  in  the  picture  of 
the  monarchy  the  reader  was  to  recognize  the 
features  of  Spain  by  the  side  of  those  of 
France,  while  sensible  that  he  had  to  deal, 
after  all,  neither  with  Spain  nor  with  France, 
but  with  the  conditions  common  to  both.  In 
this  respect  Montesquieu  intended  that  his 
whole  work  should  resemble  a  certain  chapter 
in  Book  XIII.,  "  How  Depopulation  can  be 
Remedied."  Read  it  with  your  eyes  toward 
the  south,  and  you  will  recognize  Spain ;  turn 
to  the  east,  and  Poland  will  seem  to  be  sug- 
gested. The  truth  is  that  the  examples  are 
drawn  from  several  countries  at  once,  that  the 
conclusion  is  general,  and  that  the  lesson  ap- 
plies with  equal  pertinence  to  these  nations  and 
to  all  others  where  the  conditions  are  the  same. 


io6  Montesqtiieu. 

In  a  word,  Montesquieu's  work  is  classic. 
He  does  not  follow  governments  through  their 
historical  development  and  their  successive 
revolutions;  he  exhibits  them  settled,  com- 
plete, statical,  as  if  the  essential  features  of  all 
the  epochs  of  their  history  were  combined. 
There  is  no  chronology  or  perspective ;  every- 
thing stands  upon  the  same  plane.  This  is 
unity  of  time,  place,  and  action,  transferred 
from  the  theatre  to  legislation.  Montesquieu 
considers  only  the  laws,  their  aim,  their  influ- 
ence, their  destiny;  the  rest  is  the  foundation 
for  his  work,  it  is  not  the  edifice.  He  has 
constructed  his  underpinning  with  solidity, 
and  has  driven  his  piles  deep  enough  to  find 
the  earth  firm  and  the  foundation  sure ;  but 
all  this  is  hidden  from  sight.  He  studied 
and  painted  the  monarchy  or  the  republic  as 
Moliere  studied  and  painted  the  Miser,  the 
Misanthrope,  or  the  Hypocrite ;  or  La  Bruyere 
the  Great,  the  Politicians,  the  Freethinkers. 
It  is  an  honor  to  him,  as  well  as  to  the 
classics,  his  masters,  to  show  how  history  sus- 
tains the  correctness  of  his  portrayal,  and  how 
we  can  put  names  and  dates  under  each  of  his 
pictures;  but  we  should  pervert  his  meaning 
by  adding  further  particulars. 

Again,  we  should  misconstrue  it  by  repre- 
senting it  as  abstract.  Montesquieu  endeavors 


"  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws"         107 

to  form  his  general  ideas  by  means  of  facts 
that  he  has  observed ;  he  does  not  pretend  to 
conceive,  by  dint  of  pure  speculation,  absolute 
and  universal  ideas.  He  tries  to  form  a  com- 
mon type  from  the  monarchies  or  republics  he 
knows ;  he  does  not  deduce  from  an  a  priori 
ideal,  monarchy  in  its  essence,  nor  the  rational 
republic.  It  follows  that  the  principles  he 
lays  down,  and  the  laws  he  develops  from 
them,  derive  all  their  meaning  and  application 
from  the  relation  they  sustain  to  reality. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

"  THE    SPIRIT    OF    THE    LAWS,"  —  POLITICAL 
LAWS  AND  GOVERNMENTS. 

THE  book  on  "  Governments  "  begins  with 
democratic  government ;  that  is,  with  the 
kind  in  which  the  people  are  sovereign.  Mon- 
tesquieu's conception  is  modelled  after  Rome, 
in  the  ages  when  the  Republic  was  still  the 
city ;  after  Athens  and  Lacedaemon,  "  at  a 
time  when  Greece  was  a  world  and  the  Greek 
cities  nations."  The  republic,  so  constituted, 
is  suited  only  to  a  narrow  territory;  the  citi- 
zens, few  in  number,  are  divided  into  classes ; 
they  own  slaves,  and  busy  themselves  with 
nothing  but  politics  and  war.  Thanks  to  their 
freedom  from  private  cares  and  to  the  narrow 
limits  of  the  city,  they  are  able  to  attend  to 
the  innumerable  and  absorbing  duties  of  mu- 
nicipal life.  They  carry  on  little  or  no  com- 
merce,—  enough  only  to  arouse  a  spirit  "of 
frugality,  good  management,  moderation,  labor, 
wisdom,  tranquillity,  order,  and  regularity." 
The  land  is  divided  among  them  in  equal  por- 


Political  Laws  and  Governments.     1 09 

tions.  By  too  extensive  estates,  or  by  busi- 
ness on  too  large  a  scale,  wealth  would  be 
amassed  by  private  individuals,  and  equality 
would  consequently  be  destroyed.  The  social 
hierarchy  keeps  up  a  strict  barrier  between  the 
classes.  "  It  was  only  by  the  corruption  of 
certain  democracies  that  artisans  came  to  be 
citizens." 

The  people  as  a  whole  —  that  is,  the  assembly 
of  citizens  —  make  the  laws  and  exercise  the 
sovereign  power.  "  Their  votes  declare  their 
intentions."  They  choose  their  magistrates 
from  men  whose  minds  they  know  and  whose 
administration  they  continually  control.  They 
practise  real  equality,  which  consists  "  in  obey- 
ing and  commanding  one's  equals."  They  en- 
joy that  kind  of  liberty  which  Bossuet  before 
Montesquieu  had  admirably  defined  in  describ- 
ing a  government  "  where  no  one  is  subject  to 
anything  but  the  law,  and  where  the  law  is 
more  powerful  than  men."  This  was  a  very 
singular  government,  which  could  in  no  wise 
satisfy  our  modern  notions  of  freedom.  Our 
freedom  is  before  all  else  civil  and  individual ; 
that  of  the  ancients  was  exclusively  civic,  and 
pertained  wholly  to  the  state.  Freedom  of 
conscience  is,  in  our  view,  the  first  and  most 
essential  of  our  liberties ;  but  the  ancients  had 
not  even  conceived  of  such  a  thing.  Liberty, 


1 10  Montesquieu. 

in  their  view,  consisted  solely  in  the  exercise 
of  sovereignty.  The  individual  had  no  rights 
beyond  his  vote,  and  casting  his  vote  ex- 
hausted his  rights ;  that  done,  he  remained  in 
everything  —  in  his  beliefs,  his  family,  his 
property,  his  labor,  and  in  each  of  his  acts  — 
subject  to  the  majority  of  votes,  which  was 
the  highest  law  of  the  land.  This,  according 
to  Montesquieu,  is  the  nature  of  a  republican 
form  of  government  in  a  democracy. 

Such  a  government  could  not  be  set  up 
except  in  a  society  where  the  deep  sense  of 
social  solidarity,  the  general  conception  of 
social  needs  and  interests,  and  the  equal  devo- 
tion of  all  to  the  common  weal,  permitted  the 
foundation  of  institutions  so  contrary  to  every 
man's  insubordinate,  selfish,  and  covetous  in- 
stincts. The  reason  for  the  existence  of  demo- 
cratic governments  is  found  in  these  moral 
conditions.  This  is  why  Montesquieu  con- 
cludes that  the  principle  of  this  form  of  gov- 
ernment is  virtue,  and  then  defines  this  virtue  as 
"  the  love  of  the  republic  .  .  .  the  love  of  the 
laws  and  of  country  .  .  .  the  love  of  country, 
that  is,  the  love  of  equality." 

The  virtue  which  has  established  such  insti- 
tutions is  the  only  thing  capable  of  sustaining 
them.  The  laws  ought  therefore  to  teach  citi- 
zens such  virtue,  and  oblige  them  to  practise 


Political  Laws  and  Governments.     1 1 1 

it.  The  omnipotent  power  of  the  state  over 
the  family,  the  compulsory  education  of  chil- 
dren, the  apportionment  of  the  land,  the  limi- 
tation of  inheritance,  the  sumptuary  laws,  form 
the  spirit  of  these  crushing  enactments.  Every- 
thing in  them  derives  from  this  maxim :  "  The 
popular  welfare  is  the  highest  law." 

Yet  in  spite  of  these  heroic  remedies, 
whether  because  not  employed  in  time  or  be- 
cause of  abuse,  democracy  is  susceptible  of 
decay.  This  occurs  when  the  spirit  of  equality 
becomes  perverted,  and  ambition  is  no  longer 
confined  "  solely  to  the  happiness  of  rendering 
to  one's  country  greater  services  than  other 
citizens ;  "  personal  covetousness  corrupts  am- 
bition, and  pride  perverts  it;  private  wealth 
increases,  and  with  it  indifference  to  the  public 
welfare;  the  sentiment  of  personal  indepen- 
dence is  substituted  for  that  of  civil  liberty; 
solidarity  is  lost;  jealousy  manifests  itself 
openly ;  the  bonds  of  discipline  are  relaxed ; 
equality  degenerates  into  anarchy;  that  aus- 
terity, which  by  suppressing  so  many  selfish 
passions  only  gave  more  strength  to  the  social 
passions  it  fostered,  now  disappears  from  view; 
in  a  word,  the  citizen  loses  that  self-renuncia- 
tion which  was  the  active  principle  of  all  re- 
publican virtue.  Then  all  is  over,  and  even  re- 
medies become  fatal ;  for  the  artificial  strength 


H2  Montesqu  ieu . 

they  give  the  state  is  profitable  only  to  tyranny, 
and  hastens  the  ruin  of  the  republic. 

"When  the  principles  of  the  government 
are  once  corrupted,  the  best  laws  become  bad, 
and  injurious  to  the  state ;  while  these  princi- 
ples remain  sound,  bad  laws  produce  the  effect 
of  good  ones ;  the  vigor  of  the  principle  per- 
vades the  whole.  .  .  .  The  vital  principle  of 
democracy  becomes  corrupt,  not  only  when 
the  spirit  of  equality  is  lost,  but  also  when  it  is 
carried  to  extremes,  —  when  each  one  desires 
equality  with  those  whom  he  chooses  to  com- 
mand him.  .  .  .  There  can  then  be  no  more 
virtue  in  the  republic." 

Montesquieu's  democracy  seems  very  far  re- 
moved from  our  modern  civilization.  It  takes 
on,  when  we  picture  it  to  our  minds,  a  sort 
of  paradoxical  and  Utopian  aspect.  In  fact, 
Montesquieu,  on  looking  about  him  for  some 
surviving  example  of  these  vanished  republics, 
discovered  nothing  analogous  except  in  Para- 
guay, or  among  monks  in  convents.  Nothing 
is  really  more  opposed  to  our  modern  concep- 
tions of  country,  religion,  and  labor;  to  our 
ideas  of  the  incessant  transformation  of  institu- 
tions, beliefs,  fortunes,  and  even  manners ;  to 
the  doctrine  of  progress  and  the  "  Declaration 
of  Human  Rights,"  than  the  spirit  of  these 
ancient  republics,  with  their  social  hierarchy, 


Political  Laws  and  Governments.     1 1 3 

their  slaves,  and  their  state  despotism.  Mon- 
tesquieu did  not  foresee  the  speedy  advent  and 
prodigious  development  of  modern  democracy. 
Still  less  would  he  believe  it  possible  to  or- 
ganize democratic  republics  in  vast  countries. 
"  This  perfect  organization  cannot  be  prom- 
ised," said  he,  when  treating  of  Greek  institu- 
tions, "  amid  the  confusion,  the  oversights,  the 
vast  extent  of  a  great  nation's  affairs.  .  .  .  Greek 
politicians,  living  under  a  popular  form  of 
government,  recognized  no  other  power  as 
capable  of  sustaining  it  except  the  power  of 
virtue.  The  politicians  of  our  day  talk  of 
nothing  but  manufactures,  commerce,  wealth, 
and  even  luxury." 

Montesquieu  did  not  suspect  that  these  man- 
ufactures, this  commerce,  this  wealth,  and 
even  this  luxury,  which  he  considered  incom- 
patible with  democracies,  would  one  day  be- 
come their  corner-stone,  and  that  this  revolu- 
tion would  be  effected  in  his  own  country  and 
permeate  all  Europe.  Yet  there  are,  in  all 
democracies,  organic  and  permanent  charac- 
teristics subsisting  in  spite  of  differences  of 
form.  Montesquieu  viewed  them  from  so  high 
a  standpoint,  and  with  a  glance  so  penetrat- 
ing, that  he  discerned  the  most  essential  of 
these  characteristics.  Many  counsels  which 
he  derived  from  his  inspection  of  ancient 


114  Montesquieu. 

democracies  apply  with  as  much  justice  to  the 
democracies  of  to-day.  There  is  danger  lest 
governments  be  corrupted  by  the  same  ex- 
cesses. The  government  depends  on  the  plu- 
rality of  votes,  and  this  plurality  is  composed 
of  individuals  whose  selfish  passions  are  con- 
stantly at  work  to  blind  them  to  the  public 
interest.  These  individuals  are  naturally  in- 
clined to  confound  liberty  with  participation 
in  power,  the  public  treasury  with  the  common 
inheritance  of  private  persons,  progress  with 
perpetual  innovation,  and  right  with  numbers, 
—  that  is,  with  might;  so  that  in  a  constitu- 
tion based  on  the  equality  and  liberty  of  the 
individual,  the  majority  tends  to  subjugate  the 
minority,  and  the  state  to  absorb  the  nation. 
It  must  then  be  constantly  repeated  that  free- 
dom derives  its  only  value  from  those  who 
make  use  of  it,  the  law  from  those  who  estab- 
lish it,  the  government  from  those  who  direct 
it,  the  state,  in  fine,  from  the  nation,  —  that  is, 
from  the  individuals  who  make  up  the  state. 
Each  one  is  responsible  for  the  common  wel- 
fare, and  each  is  charged  with  the  interests  of 
all.  If  the  majority  of  the  citizens  are  greedy, 
jealous,  insubordinate,  equality  engenders  spo- 
liation, ostracism,  anarchy,  and  necessarily 
brings  about  the  decline  of  the  state.  The 
more  the  rights  of  the  individual  are  extended, 


Political  Laws  and  Governments.     1 1 5 

the  more  imperious  his  passions  become.  The 
more  extensive  becomes  the  sway  in  society 
of  that  pitiless  law  of  the  struggle  for  exist- 
ence, the  more  necessary  it  becomes  to  satu- 
rate democracies  with  the  principles  of  na- 
tional unity,  paramount  love  of  country,  social 
combination  for  the  public  good.  What  else  is 
this  but  virtue,  as  defined  by  Montesquieu? 

Such  virtue  would  not  be  less  necessary  to 
aristocracies,  —  that  is,  republics  where  the  sov- 
ereign power  is  in  the  hands  of  a  few.  Mon- 
tesquieu treats  these  aristocracies  at  length, 
but  the  subject  has  now  no  interest  for  us ; 
republics  of  this  kind  have  vanished  from 
Europe.  But  in  the  days  of  Montesquieu  this 
political  phenomenon  still  existed ;  he  had  ob- 
served it  at  Venice,  and  studied  it  in  the  case 
of  Poland.  Touching  this  latter  republic,  his 
views  are  far-reaching.  He  said  that  it  was  the 
most  imperfect  of  aristocracies,  "  one  in  which 
those  who  obey  are  in  civil  bondage  to  those 
who  rule."  In  Poland,  the  republic  only  ex- 
isted for  the  nobles,  and  they  ruined  it.  To 
sustain  it,  "  the  families  of  the  aristocracy 
ought  to  be  of  the  people  so  far  as  possible." 
Their  privileges  must  be  ceaselessly  renewed 
and  rendered  legitimate  by  new  services,  or 
else  the  republic  is  only  a  "  despotic  govern- 
ment with  several  despots."  The  independence 


1 1 6  Montesquieu. 

of  each  of  them  becomes  the  object  of  the 
laws,  and  the  result  is  the  oppression  of  all. 
The  nobles  being  very  numerous,  if  corruption 
affects  them,  the  last  resource  of  the  state  is 
gone.  "  Anarchy  degenerates  into  annihila- 
tion." An  aristocracy  so  organized  must  con- 
stantly be  kept  awake  by  some  fear.  "  The  more 
security  such  states  have,  the  more  subject  they 
are,  like  stagnant  waters,  to  become  corrupt" 

Occasions  for  uneasiness  were  lacking  nei- 
ther in  Venice  nor  in  Poland;  but  these  re- 
publics, weak  and  blind,  trusted  an  illusory 
law  of  nations  that  no  one  respected.  Behold- 
ing the  division  of  their  enemies,  they  dis- 
missed their  fears.  The  Venetians  abdicated, 
as  it  were;  the  Poles,  more  divided  by  faction 
than  their  neighbors  by  rivalry,  surrendered  of 
themselves.  An  agreement  was  more  easily 
reached  between  Russia,  Prussia,  and  Austria, 
for  partitioning  the  republic,  than  among  the 
Poles  for  their  own  defence.  The  appeals  of 
the  Doge  Renier  in  1780,  and  the  attempt  the 
Polish  patriots  made  in  1790  to  regenerate 
their  country,  are  only  a  commentary  on  Mon- 
tesquieu's precepts.  The  fall  of  these  two  aris- 
tocracies is  the  justification  of  his  conclusions. 
"  If  a  republic  is  small,  it  is  destroyed  by  force 
from  without ;  if  large,  by  vice  within,"  he  had 
said.  Venice  and  Poland  were  put  in  jeopardy 


Political  Laws  and  Governments.     1 1 7 

by  vice  within,  and  annihilated  by  force  from 
without. 

Democracy,  which  to  Montesquieu  was  only 
a  historical  phenomenon,  rules  to-day  in  some 
of  the  greatest  nations  of  the  world,  and  tends 
to  be  introduced  among  the  rest;  the  mon- 
archy which  he  described  was  the  most  wide- 
spread form  of  government  in  Europe,  and  in 
our  day  has  almost  completely  disappeared. 
Montesquieu  studied  it  fondly,  and  devoted  a 
chapter  to  prove  its  excellence.  We  cannot 
doubt  that  in  composing  this  part  of  his  work 
his  mind  was  constantly  taken  up  with  the 
French  monarchy  and  the  decline  with  which 
it  seemed  threatened.  France  was  tending 
toward  despotism,  and  nothing  was  more  dif- 
ferent from  despotism  than  monarchy  as  he 
conceived  it.  Bossuet  had  distinguished  abso- 
lute monarchy,  in  which  the  prince  governs  ac- 
cording to  the  laws,  from  arbitrary  monarchy, 
in  which  he  governs  according  to  his  caprice. 
This  arbitrary  government  Montesquieu  calls 
despotism,  and  styles  as  monarchy  proper  the 
government  in  which  "  one  person  governs  by 
fixed  and  established  laws." 

It  is  the  nature  of  monarchy  to  be  founded 
upon  laws.  The  monarch  is  the  source  of  all 
power,  political  and  civil;  but  he  exercises 
this  power  by  means  of  channels  "  through 


1 1 8  Montesquieu. 

which  his  power  flows."  These  are  "  the  in- 
termediate, subordinate,  and  dependent  pow- 
ers," moderating  "  the  shifting  and  capricious 
will  of  a  single  person."  The  two  foremost 
of  these  powers  are  the  nobility  and  clergy ; 
the  third  is  a  body  of  magistrates,  serving  as  a 
repository  for  constitutional  laws,  and  remind- 
ing the  prince  of  them  when  he  seems  to 
forget  them.  This  hierarchy  of  rank  is  the 
necessary  condition  of  monarchical  government. 
If  it  is  destroyed,  the  inevitable  tendency  is 
toward  either  despotism  or  democracy. 

While  virtue  is  the  essential  principle  of 
republics,  the  essential  principle  of  monarchy 
is  honor:  not  that  honor  is  opposed  to  vir- 
tue ;  honor  is  pre-eminently  the  political  virtue 
of  monarchy.  Virtue,  for  the  republican,  con- 
sists in  love  of  country  and  of  equality;  for 
the  monarchist,  it  consists  in  love  of  the  mon- 
arch and  of  privilege,  —  a  love  that  causes 
men  to  serve  the  monarch,  and  by  their  ser- 
vice to  restrain  him.  Monarchy  was  estab- 
lished because  the  nation  was  not  capable  of 
governing  itself.  The  nation  intrusted  the 
government  to  a  chief  and  to  his  descendants. 
Such  a  government  is  based  upon  obedience; 
and  in  order  to  sustain  it  obedience  must  be 
glorious  and  must  not  degenerate  into  sub- 
jection. To  supply  the  lack  of  independence 


Political  Laws  and  Governments.     119 

there  must  be  the  greatness  of  soul  which 
results  from  a  high  sense  of  honor.  To  un- 
derstand this  chapter  well  one  should  refer 
continually  to  the  "  Memoirs  of  Saint-Simon." 

The  laws  derived  from  this  principle,  laws 
which  consequently  give  stability  to  monarchy, 
are  those  sustaining  the  sentiment  of  honor  and 
the  prerogatives  on  which  it  rests  ;  namely,  those 
relating  to  privileges,  primogeniture,  entail, 
prohibition  to  nobles  to  engage  in  commerce. 

Since  monarchy  maintains  itself  by  the  op- 
position of  the  various  intermediate  powers, 
the  spirit  of  this  form  of  government  is  mod- 
eration. If  it  ceases  to  be  moderate,  it  ex- 
poses itself  to  danger,  and  perishes  by  the 
corruption  of  its  principle.  Honor  turns  into 
vanity,  obedience  degenerates  into  servitude, 
and  is  no  longer  a  virtue,  but  a  means  of  win- 
ning success.  Service  to  the  court  swallows 
up  service  to  the  state.  "  If  the  prince  loves 
free  souls,"  says  Montesquieu,  "  he  will  have 
subjects;  if  he  loves  base  souls  he  will  have 
slaves."  Such  base  souls  he  finds,  and  he  de- 
grades them  by  subjecting  them  to  his  caprices ; 
he  reduces  magistrates  to  silence ;  he  suppresses 
constitutional  laws ;  he  governs  arbitrarily ;  and 
this  despotism  finally  corrupting  the  court, 
the  court  corrupts  the  people  by  its  example. 
The  morals  which  made  monarchy  possible 


1 20  Montesquieu. 

disappear;  official  bodies  lose  their  dignity, 
privileges  their  propriety,  the  privileged  classes 
their  authority;  and  all  tends,  just  as  if  privi- 
leges had  been  abolished,  to  one  or  the  other 
of  those  inevitable  alternatives  of  a  monarchy 
in  its  decline,  —  democracy  or  despotism. 

Montesquieu  abhors  despotism.  He  draws 
a  frightful  picture  of  it,  but  it  is  not  a  lifelike 
picture.  Montesquieu  did  not  observe  the 
facts  himself,  and  documents  were  wanting. 
He  considered  only  Oriental  despotism,  that 
of  Ispahan  and  Constantinople,  that  of  the 
"  Persian  Letters,"  with  its  mysterious  seragl- 
ios, its  terrible  harems,  its  jealous  sultans  and 
melancholy  eunuchs.  If  he  had  only  known 
Russia,  it  would  have  revealed  to  him  a  much 
more  interesting  type,  and  one,  too,  much  more 
accessible  to  Europeans,  —  a  despotism  tem- 
pered by  religion.  Montesquieu  gives  only 
very  distant  and  very  confused  glimpses  of  the 
autocracy  of  the  tzars.  What  Russia  had  then 
already  shown,  and  what  she  has  shown  since, 
unsettles  many  of  his  maxims  and  overthrows 
some  of  them. 

"  No  one,"  said  he,  concerning  despotisms, 
"  loves  either  the  state  or  the  sovereign." 
Russia  is  an  empire  in  which  the  ruler  is  the 
living  and  arbitrary  law;  but  the  love  he  in- 
spires in  the  people  gives  the  government  all 


Political  Laws  and  Governments.     121 

its  strength.  Montesquieu  thinks  such  a  gov- 
ernment inconsistent  with  greatness  of  soul  ; 
but  Catherine  II.  and  her  grandson  Alexander 
have  proved  the  contrary.  He  considers  that 
the  liberty  the  tzar  has  in  choosing  his  suc- 
cessor renders  his  throne  tottering,  "  since  the 
order  of  succession  is  one  of  the  things  most 
important  for  the  people  to  know."  But, 
though  the  most  fantastic  disorder  in  the  suc- 
cession to  the  throne  prevailed  during  the 
whole  eighteenth  century,  the  throne  grew 
constantly  stronger,  and  the  Russian  people 
only  inquired  the  name  of  its  master  in  order 
to  change,  in  its  prayers,  the  name  of  its 
patron  saint.  In  order  to  have  done  with 
despotism,  Montesquieu  wrote  that  withering 
chapter  consisting  of  only  three  lines,  and  yet 
containing  so  grand  an  image :  "  When  the 
savages  of  Louisiana  wish  to  have  fruit,  they 
cut  down  a  tree  and  pluck  the  fruit.  Such  is 
despotic  government."  This  is  the  despotism 
of  the  Sultan,  not  that  of  the  Tzar  Peter  or  of 
Catherine  the  Great. 

It  may  be  asked  why,  though  treating  almost 
wholly  of  the  monstrous  Oriental  despotisms, 
he  has  so  dwelt  upon  the  subject,  and  how  he 
could  discuss  with  so  much  interest  their  na- 
ture, their  vital  principle,  and  the  corruption 
of  this  principle.  Symmetry  doubtless  was 


122  Montesquieu. 

one  consideration;  his  impression  from  read- 
ing Tavernier  and  Chardin  also  counts  for 
something.  It  is  likewise  allowable  to  think 
that  Montesquieu  sought  an  effective  contrast, 
that  he  wished  to  set  off  by  a  sort  of  relief  the 
excellence  of  monarchy  and  its  danger  of  de- 
generating, and  so  to  prepare  minds  by  a  natu- 
ral transition  for  a  better  comprehension  of  his 
ideas  on  political  liberty. 

He  has  treated  of  this  in  a  book  by  itself, 
apart  from  forms  of  government.  Political 
liberty  is,  indeed,  compatible  with  several 
forms,  and  is  not  necessarily  attached  to  either 
of  those  with  which  it  is  compatible.  Mon- 
tesquieu distinguishes  it  from  national  inde- 
pendence, which  is  the  freedom  of  a  people 
from  foreign  control,  and  from  civil  liberty, 
which  is  free  control  of  person  and  property 
among  the  people.  He  defines  political  lib- 
erty as  "  the  right  to  do  all  that  the  laws  per- 
mit .  .  .  Liberty  can  consist  only  in  being  able 
to  do  what  one  ought  to  desire,  and  in  not  be- 
ing forced  to  do  what  one  ought  not  to  desire." 
This  definition  is  obscure  and  inadequate. 
The  law  may  be,  and  has  been,  a  tool  of  des- 
potism. It  may  demand  of  me  what  I  ought 
not  to  desire,  and  forbid  what  I  ought  to  desire. 
The  acts  of  Parliament  oppressing  the  Cath- 
olics and  the  English  Dissenters  were  laws. 


Political  Laws  and  Governments.     123 

Freedom  of  conscience  was  enjoyed  in  the 
dominions  of  Frederick  the  Great,  where  the 
king  reigned  without  control ;  but  was  not 
enjoyed  in  England,  where  there  was  a  parlia- 
ment and  responsible  ministers. 

Where,  then,  is  liberty  to  be  found?  "Po- 
litical liberty  is  not  to  be  found  except  in  mod- 
erate governments.  But  it  does  not  always 
exist  in  moderate  governments ;  it  exists  only 
when  power  is  not  abused.  ...  In  order  that 
power  may  not  be  abused  it  must  be  so  dis- 
tributed that  power  shall  check  power." 

This  is  the  famous  theory  of  the  distribution 
of  powers.  Montesquieu  sums  it  up  in  the 
following  terms :  "  When,  in  the  same  person 
or  in  the  same  legislative  body,  the  law-making 
power  is  combined  with  the  administrative 
power,  there  is  no  liberty,  because  there  is 
room  for  fear  lest  the  same  monarch  or  the 
same  senate  make  tyrannical  laws  for  the  pur- 
pose of  executing  them  tyrannically."  This 
has  been  illustrated  in  France  under  the  sway 
of  monarchy  pure  and  simple,  and  under  that 
of  assemblies.  The  revocation  of  the  Edict  of 
Nantes,  the  law  of  "  arrest  on  suspicion,"  and 
the  law  of  "  hostages,"  afford  proof  of  it.  The 
legislative  and  executive  powers,  then,  must 
be  separated ;  but  if  this  is  necessary  to  se- 
cure liberty,  it  is  nevertheless  not  sufficient. 


1 24  Montesquieu. 

"  There  is  still  no  liberty,  if  the  judicial  power 
be  not  separated  from  the  legislative  and  ex- 
ecutive. If  the  judicial  were  combined  with 
the  legislative  power,  the  judge  would  have  ar- 
bitrary control  over  the  lives  and  liberties  of 
citizens,  for  he  would  also  be  the  law-giver; 
and  if  the  judicial  were  combined  with  the 
executive  power,  the  judge  might  employ  op- 
pressive violence."  This  separation  had,  in 
fact,  already  taken  place  in  several  European 
governments,  —  in  the  French  government, 
for  example,  —  and  this  is  why  Montesquieu 
termed  these  governments  moderate. 

Montesquieu  did  not  invent  this  system : 
Aristotle  had  proposed  it ;  but  none  had  set  it 
forth  in  a  form  so  simple  and  so  convincing. 
Montesquieu  transported  it  from  the  region  of 
theory  to  that  of  practice,  and  popularized  it. 
He  had  not  seen  all  these  rules  applied,  except 
in  England,  and  it  is  England  he  describes 
when  he  wishes  to  present  an  example  of  a 
nation  "  which  regards  political  liberty  as  the 
direct  object  of  its  constitution." 

He  does  not  give  the  history  of  this  consti- 
tution, and  touches  on  the  problem  of  its 
origin  only  in  order  to  repeat  once  more,  in 
"  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws,"  a  favorite  paradox 
from  the  "  Persian  Letters  "  :  "  If  you  will  read 
the  admirable  work  of  Tacitus  called  '  Germa- 


Political  Laws  and  Governments.     1 2  5 

nia,'  you  will  see  that  it  is  from  the  Germans 
that  the  English  derived  their  idea  of  political 
government.  This  fine  system  was  found  in 
the  woods."  Montesquieu  boasted  of  descend- 
ing from  those  Goths  who,  "  after  conquering 
the  Roman  Empire,  established  everywhere 
monarchy  and  liberty."  He  had  his  public 
reasons  for  seeking  in  Tacitus  the  elements  of 
the  English  constitution,  and  his  private  satis- 
faction in  finding  them  there.  Very  grave  and 
learned  men  have  sought  them  since  in  the 
same  quarter,  have  found  them  in  their  turn, 
and  displayed  them  to  other  learned  person- 
ages who  are  confident  of  having  seen  them. 
It  would  be  impertinent  to  rally  Montesquieu 
upon  this  ancestral  prejudice,  and  we  ought  to 
be  grateful  to  him  for  having  displayed  it  so 
good-humoredly  and  with  so  little  pedantry. 
I  will  try  to  imitate  him  by  not  insisting  upon 
the  subject,  and  will  refer  the  reader  to  Gneist 
and  Freeman,  the  one  a  German  the  other  an 
Englishman,  both  of  whom  stand  up  for  Taci- 
tus and  the  forests;  and  to  M.  Guizot  and 
his  more  recent  disciple  and  successor,  M. 
Boutmy,  who  seem  to  me  to  refute  Montes- 
quieu's prejudice  by  his  own  method.  The 
two  latter  here  apply  that  method  with  more 
breadth  than  Montesquieu  himself,  showing 
that  the  origin  of  the  English  constitution  is 


1 26  Montesquieu. 

rather  historical  than  ethnological,  and  that  it 
sprang  neither  from  forests  nor  from  fields,  but 
"  from  necessities  created  by  circumstances." 

Montesquieu  analyzes  this  constitution  in  its 
maturity,  when  it  had  reached  such  a  stage  of 
development  that  other  states  were  capable  of 
assimilating  it.  He  assumes  it  as  settled.  He 
collects  and  generalizes  its  elements  as  he  had 
done  in  the  case  of  the  ancient  republics.  He 
throws  the  strongest  light  upon  that  portion 
of  England's  institutions  which  can  be  trans- 
ferred to  other  countries.  And  this  transfer- 
ence has  actually  occurred  on  all  sides,  not 
only  in  the  case  of  monarchies,  but,  with  some 
formal  changes,  in  that  of  republics  wnose 
territory  is  too  great  for  the  people  to  govern 
it  directly. 

The  following  is  Montesquieu's  conception 
of  the  constitution  on  which  the  English  gov- 
ernment is  based.  To  make  the  laws  and 
control  their  execution,  there  is  a  body  of 
legislators  composed  of  representatives  of  the 
people  elected  by  a  system  of  suffrage  almost 
universal,  for  it  must  include  "  all  citizens  .  .  . 
except  those  who  are  in  such  a  low  condition 
that  they  are  considered  to  have  no  will  of 
their  own ;  "  there  is  an  upper  chamber  com- 
posed of  hereditary  members  sharing  with  the 
legislative  assembly  in  making  the  laws,  except 


Political  Laws  and  Governments.     127 

those  relating  to  taxes,  in  regard  to  which  the 
upper  chamber  is  granted  only  the  right  to 
oppose  for  fear  lest  it  be  corrupted  by  the 
crown ;  there  is  an  executive  power  intrusted 
to  a  monarch,  because  just  as  legislation  de- 
mands deliberation,  which  is  the  act  of  several 
persons,  so  execution  requires  volition,  which 
properly  belongs  to  but  one ;  the  executive 
has  not  necessarily  the  power  of  originating 
the  laws,  and  takes  no  part  in  debates,  but  has 
the  right  to  veto  new  laws;  if  there  is  no 
monarch,  the  executive  power  must  not  be 
intrusted  to  members  of  the  legislative  assem- 
bly, because  then  the  two  powers  would  be 
blended ;  the  legislative  assembly  can  judge 
neither  the  conduct  nor  the  person  of  the 
monarch,  because  this  would  be  a  confusion 
of  powers ;  but  though  the  monarch  is  invio- 
lable and  sacred,  his  ministers  can  be  called 
to  account  and  punished.  The  two  chambers 
meet  at  stated  times,  and  each  year  vote  on 
the  amount  of  the  taxes  and  the  number  of 
soldiers. 

The  very  general  character  which  Mon- 
tesquieu gave  to  this  theory  has  helped  to 
propagate  it;  but  this  general  application 
stamps  it  as  literature  with  a  sort  of  dryness. 
This  chapter  is  all  made  up  of  maxims.  It  is 
a  masterpiece  of  design,  but  lacks  life  and 


1 28  Montesquieu. 

color.  It  must  be  supplemented  by  that 
chapter  of  Book  XIX.,  in  which  Montesquieu 
describes  the  English  political  morals  and  ana- 
lyzes their  public  spirit,  the  real  author,  inter- 
preter, and  guardian  of  their  constitution.  He 
shows  the  vigor  and  constancy  of  their  love 
for  their  liberties.  Against  this  political  virtue 
he  sets  off  the  defects  connected  with  it,  —  con- 
stant uneasiness  in  the  body  politic,  inconsist- 
ency in  government,  corruption  in  elections 
and  in  public  business,  impatience  of  authority, 
commercial  jealousy,  sharp  bargains,  haughti- 
ness at  all  junctures,  and  such  arrogance  that, 
even  in  peace,  the  English  seem  to  "  negotiate 
with  none  but  enemies."  He  is  doubtless  a 
little  too  hasty  in  his  generalization  when  he 
decides  that  the  English  are  not  conquerors 
by  nature,  and  that  they  are  free  from  "  de- 
structive prejudices."  They  have  conquered 
one  of  the  vastest  empires  of  the  world,  and  de- 
stroyed enormous  numbers  of  the  aborigines. 
Montesquieu  speaks  of  Ireland  and  the  des- 
potism there  with  too  much  indulgence ;  but 
as  a  whole  his  views  are  sound. 

He  detected  and  laid  bare  that  terrible  Eng- 
lish energy  which  so  long  escaped  the  attention 
of  continental  Europe.  He  refuted  with  one 
stroke  of  the  pen  the  delusion  which  so  long 
misled  the  French,  deceived  the  members  of 


Political  Laws  and  Governments.     129 

the  Convention,  and  destroyed  Napoleon.  In 
a  word,  he  foresaw  Pitt  and  discerned  the  for- 
midable character  of  the  twenty-three  years' 
war,  when  he  pronounced  that  judgment 
which,  inferred  from  facts  and  confirmed  by 
history,  deserves  to  be  compared  with  the 
soundest  scientific  theories.  "  If  any  foreign 
power  threatened  the  state  and  put  the  na- 
tional fortune  or  glory  in  jeopardy,  for  the 
time  being  smaller  interests  would  yield  to 
greater,  and  all  would  unite  to  support  the 
executive  power.  .  .  .  This  nation  would  be 
passionately  enamoured  of  its  liberty,  because 
this  liberty  would  be  real ;  and  it  might  hap- 
pen that  the  people  would  sacrifice  in  its  de- 
fence property,  ease,  and  personal  interests  ; 
that  they  would  load  themselves  with  the 
heaviest  taxes,  such  as  the  most  absolute 
monarch  would  not  dare  to  impose  on  his 
subjects.  .  .  .  They  would  have  undoubted 
credit,  because  they  would  borrow  of  them- 
selves and  pay  themselves.  They  might  under- 
take what  was  beyond  their  natural  resources 
and  utilize  against  their  enemies  an  immense 
fictitious  wealth  which  their  credit  and  the  na- 
ture of  their  government  would  render  real." 

We   should   like   to   pause  before   this  far- 
reaching  perspective ;   but  we  should  still  have 
but    a    partial    conception   of    Montesquieu's 
9 


1 30  Montesquieu.  ^ 

views  on  governments  and  on  the  laws  result- 
ing from  the  nature  and  essential  principle  of 
constitutions.  He  also  examines  these  laws 
in  their  relations  to  crimes  and  their  penalties, 
and  to  the  raising  of  taxes  and  government 
revenues.  We  have  just  now  seen  by  what 
intimate  bonds  this  question  of  the  national 
finances  is  connected  with  the  political  liberty 
of  the  citizens.  Montesquieu's  definition  of 
taxes  has  become  classical.  "  Each  citizen 
contributes  to  the  revenues  of  the  state  a  por- 
tion of  his  property  in  order  that  his  tenure  of 
the  rest  may  be  more  secure."  He  demon- 
strates the  advantages  of  indirect  taxation,  and 
appears  to  be  partial  to  a  progressive  tax. 
This  partiality  is  perhaps  explained  by  his 
illusions  with  regard  to  the  ancient  republics, 
but  more  especially  by  the  example  of  the 
poll-tax  as  it  was  applied  in  his  time  to  the 
privileged  orders.  It  was  graduated  not  ac- 
cording to  fortune,  but  according  to  the 
tax-payer's  dignity  and  rank  in  the  state. 
Montesquieu  condemns  the  excise,  and  pro- 
tests vigorously  against  the  salt-tax  and  extor- 
tionate imposts.  "  All  is  lost,"  said  he,  "  when 
the  lucrative  trade  of  the  farmer  of  the  revenue 
succeeds  by  its  wealth  in  becoming  an  honor- 
able profession." 

His  studies  on  the  criminal  laws  are  justly 


Political  Laws  and  Governments.     131 

reckoned  among  his  clearest  titles  to  the  grati- 
tude of  humanity.  He  has  nowhere  displayed 
more  force  of  thought  or  more  refinement  of 
style  than  in  the  chapter  on  the  efficacy  of 
penalties.  It  is  one  of  those  in  which  there 
are  so  many  evidences  of  his  kinship  with 
Montaigne:  "We  must  not  proceed  at  once 
to  extreme  measures  in  controlling  men ;  we 
should  husband  the  means  that  Nature  gives 
us  for  their  guidance.  If  we  examine  the 
cause  of  all  defiance  of  law,  we  shall  see  that 
it  is  to  be  found  in  the  failure  to  punish  crime, 
not  in  the  moderation  of  the  penalty." 

It  is  a  stroke  of  purely  eighteenth-century 
wit  to  comment  on  this  maxim  in  the  following 
chapter,  —  a  chapter  crammed  with  allusions 
and  insinuations, — under  the  unexpected  title, 
"  Inefficacy  of  Japanese  Laws."  "  Exces- 
sive penalties  may  corrupt  despotism  itself." 
A  wise  legislator  should  seek  "  to  win  over 
men's  minds  by  a  just  balance  of  penalties  and 
rewards;  by  philosophical,  moral,  and  relig- 
ious maxims  ...  by  the  proper  application 
of  the  rules  of  honor ;  by  the  penalty  of  dis- 
grace." Really,  some  one  will  say,  this  is 
our  fathers'  philosophic  idyll,  and  their  senti- 
mentality !  Nevertheless,  the  positive  science 
of  our  day  has  discovered  no  more  efficacious 
method  of  reclaiming  criminals;  and  we  saw 


132  Montesquieu. 

at  the  end  of  the  last  century,  after  the  Terror 
and  the  Directory,  what  excessive  measures  of 
repression  lead  to.  Montesquieu  had  foretold 
the  result :  "  A  vice  engendered  by  this  severity 
remains  among  the  people;  their  minds  are 
corrupted,  and  they  become  accustomed  to 
despotism." 

Every  one  knows  that  Montesquieu  had  the 
honor  of  contributing  to  the  abolition  of  tor- 
ture. The  peremptory  arguments  he  brings 
forward  against  confiscations  have  been  less 
frequently  noticed.  It  took  courage  to  bring 
them  forward  in  his  day.  Confiscation  was 
quite  the  regular  thing  in  the  criminal  courts. 
It  was  suppressed  in  1790,  only  to  be  again 
legalized  some  time  after,  and  to  be  pushed  to 
an  excess  beyond  the  worst  of  its  kind  in  the 
unhappiest  years  of  the  Old  Regime.  As  to  the 
lettres  de  cachet,  Montesquieu  condemns  them 
indirectly  by  praising  the  habeas  corpus. 

He  lays  down  the  true  principles  of  the 
liberty  to  think  and  to  write :  "  The  laws  un- 
dertake to  punish  only  overt  acts.  .  .  .  Pun- 
ishment is  not  intended  for  words,  but  for  a 
deed  done  in  which  words  may  be  employed. 
Words  become  criminal  only  when  they  pre- 
pare for,  accompany,  or  follow  a  criminal  ac- 
tion." The  Old  Regime  did  not  recognize  this 
freedom  of  speech;  it  was  loudly  proclaimed 


Political  Laws  and  Governments.      133 

by  the  Revolution,  and  shamefully  violated. 
Montesquieu  was  treating  of  the  abuses  of 
monarchical  legislation  only,  but  he  condemned 
beforehand  the  abuses  of  revolutionary  legisla- 
tion when  he  said  :  "  Nothing  renders  the  charge 
of  treason  more  arbitrary  than  when  indis- 
creet words  become  the  foundation  for  it.  ... 
It  is  then  a  crying  abuse  to  give  the  name  of 
treason  to  an  action  which  is  not  treason."  He 
does  not  admit  that  this  term  applies  either  to 
intrigues  against  ministers,  as  under  Richelieu ; 
or  to  spurious  coinage,  as  under  Valentinian, 
Theodosius,  Arcadius,  in  cases  which  he  cites ; 
or  to  the  forgery  of  royal  papers,  which  was 
declared  treason  by  a  decree  of  1720.  This 
last  case  Montesquieu  does  not  cite,  but  it  was 
remembered  in  the  time  of  the  assignats. 

The  worst  abuse  is  to  extend  the  name  of 
treason  to  sacrilege  and  heresy.  This  was 
common  law  at  the  time  when  Montesquieu 
wrote.  The  cases  of  La  Barre  and  of  Galas 
have  made  so  much  noise  that  no  one  is  igno- 
rant of  them.  The  decree  of  1724,  confirming 
and  comprising  the  most  implacable  measures 
of  Louis  XIV.  against  the  reformed  believers, 
was  in  full  force.  A  more  cruel  law  cannot 
be  imagined ;  that  against  Roman  Catholics  in 
England  was  not  more  so.  Heretics  were  still 
burned  at  the  stake  in  Portugal  and  Spain. 


1 34  Montesquieu. 

"The  trouble,"  says  Montesquieu,  "  has  come 
from  this  idea  that  the  Deity  must  be  avenged." 
Simple  sacrilege,  a  merely  religious  offence, 
can  be  punished  only  by  expulsion  from  the 
temple  and  exclusion  from  the  society  of  the 
faithful.  As  to  sacrilege  which  causes  a  dis- 
turbance in  religious  services,  it  is  a  crime  like 
that  of  disturbing  the  peace,  and  must  be 
classed  with  such  crimes.  In  other  words,  the 
civil  law  does  not  recognize  sacrilege,  and  can- 
not repress  it. 

Montesquieu  does  not  dwell  long  upon  the 
repression  of  heresy,  but  condemns  this  re- 
pression in  a  few  lines  of  haughty  raillery,  by 
withering  comparisons.  "  Important  maxim : 
the  prosecution  of  magic  and  heresy  must 
be  conducted  with  great  circumspection." 
Moreover,  of  what  use  are  persecutions  and 
punishments?  "  Men  who  believe  in  sure  re- 
wards in  the  other  world  will  escape  the  legis- 
lator ;  they  will  have  too  much  contempt  for 
death."  With  this  conviction  he  addresses  a 
"  Very  humble  remonstrance  to  the  inquisitors 
of  Spain  and  Portugal,"  in  which  the  pathos  of 
the  thought  is  hidden  under  a  veil  of  irony. 
He  puts  it  into  the  mouth  of  a  Jew,  and,  if 
taken  literally,  it  is  concerned  with  Israelites 
alone;  but  Montesquieu  has  his  mind  on 
France.  He  makes  an  indirect  appeal  to  the 


Political  Laws  and  Governments.     135 

persecutors  of  reformed  believers  when,  in  the 
following  chapter,  he  pretends  to  explain 
"  Why  the  Christian  religion  is  so  odious  in 
Japan."  "  The  Law  of  Japan  punished  se- 
verely the  least  disobedience.  When  ordered 
to  renounce  the  Christian  religion,  not  to  re- 
nounce it  was  to  disobey ;  this  crime  was  pun- 
ished, and  continued  disobedience  appeared 
to  merit  additional  punishments.  Punishments, 
in  Japan,  are  regarded  as  vengeance  for  insults 
offered  to  the  prince."  They  were  so  regarded 
in  France,  if  any  were  so  insolent  as  to  show 
that  they  did  not  believe  in  the  king's  religion. 

As  to  toleration,  the  counsels  of  "  The  Spirit 
of  the  Laws"  make  no  substantial  advance 
beyond  the  insinuations  of  the  "  Persian  Let- 
ters." Montesquieu  demands  the  Edict  of 
Nantes,  the  whole  Edict,  and  nothing  but  the 
Edict.  He  fears  religious  propagandism,  be- 
cause, in  his  opinion,  it  disturbs  states  and 
overthrows  paternal  authority  in  families.  He 
dreads  the  retaliation  of  persecuted  sects  which 
begin  to  persecute  as  soon  as  they  cease  to 
be  oppressed.  "  This,"  he  concludes,  "  is  the 
fundamental  principle  of  political  law  with  re- 
gard to  religion.  When  it  is  in  our  power  to 
receive  into  the  state  a  new  religion  or  to  re- 
fuse to  receive  it,  we  should  not  establish  it ; 
once  established,  however,  it  must  be  toler- 


136  Montesquieu. 

ated."  If  it  is  judged  expedient  to  destroy  it, 
gentle  and  wily  means  are  the  only  efficacious 
ones.  "  The  surest  way  to  attack  a  religion  is 
by  favor,  by  the  comforts  of  life,  by  the  hope 
of  fortune ;  not  by  what  makes  men  vigilant, 
but  by  what  makes  them  forgetful;  not  by 
what  excites  indignation,  but  by  what  lulls  to 
indifference,  when  other  passions  act  upon  the 
soul,  and  when  those  inspired  by  religion  are 
chilled.  As  a  general  rule  in  regard  to  change 
of  religion,  invitations  are  stronger  than  penal- 
ties." Such  were  the  views  of  Richelieu,  who 
was  a  great  disciple  of  Macchiavelli  in  these 
matters;  such  the  views  of  politicians  like 
Saint- Simon,  who  reproached  Louis  XIV.  for 
having  spoiled  by  his  violence  and  pride  the 
work  of  patience  and  suggestion. 

Some  readers  would  perhaps  be  inclined  to 
see  in  this  passage  merely  irony.  I  believe 
that  they  would  be  in  error,  and  that  Montes- 
quieu says  here  just  what  he  thinks.  A  state 
religion,  tempered  by  the  indifference  of  the 
majority  and  the  incredulity  of  the  select  few, 
seems  to  him  preferable,  at  bottom,  to  the 
rivalry  of  different  sects.  He  regards  the 
clergy  as  an  order  useful  to  the  state,  but  to 
be  kept  within  bounds.  Their  wealth,  which 
in  France  seemed  to  him  excessive,  ought  to 
be  limited  by  the  state.  Montesquieu  dreads 


Political  Laws  and  Governments.      137 

the  clergy's  influence  in  political  affairs,  about 
which,  he  says,  they  know  nothing.  For 
monks  he  has  an  inveterate  contempt,  and 
does  not  mince  his  expression  of  it.  He  goes 
so  far  as  to  compare  them  somewhere  to  con- 
querors; that  is,  in  his  opinion,  to  the  most 
harmful  of  all  men. 

All  things  considered,  Montesquieu  deserves 
to  be  praised,  and  very  highly  praised,  for 
composing  these  chapters.  In  the  age  in 
which  he  lived  it  was  much  to  treat  these 
burning  questions  as  subjects  of  public  dis- 
cussion and  as  articles  of  politics.  It  required 
as  much  boldness  to  speak  of  them  with  free- 
dom before  the  Church,  as  to  speak  of  them 
with  respect  before  freethinkers.  Montesquieu 
rises  at  once  above  Voltaire,  who  can  never  in 
religious  matters  separate  history  wholly  from 
polemics,  or  polemics  from  ridicule.  Montes- 
quieu writes  in  reference  to  Bayle,  that  "  it  is 
fallacious  reasoning  to  put  together  in  a  great 
work  a  long  enumeration  of  the  evils  religion 
has  produced,  without  enumerating  at  the  same 
time  the  benefits  it  has  accomplished.  If  I 
wished  to  recount  all  the  evils  produced  by 
civil  laws,  monarchy,  republican  government, 
I  should  have  frightful  things  to  relate." 

These  reflections  on  criminal  laws  and  on 
toleration  are  grave  and  austere.  Why  need 


1 38  Montesquieu. 

he,  led  away  by  some  strange  aberration  of 
taste,  introduce  among  these  noble  essays,  in 
the  way  of  diversion  and  interlude,  the  most 
useless,  most  mawkish,  and  most  offensive  of 
digressions  ?  It  is  the  chapter  entitled  "  Viola- 
tion of  Modesty  in  the  Repression  of  Crimes ;  " 
one  might  add,  —  "  and  in  '  The  Spirit  of  the 
Laws.' " 


CHAPTER  VII. 

"  THE  SPIRIT  OF  THE  LAWS,"  —  CLIMATE,  CIVIL 
LAWS,  INTERNATIONAL  LAW,  ECONOMIC 
LAWS;  THE  THEORY  OF  FEUDAL  LAWS. 

NO  part  of  Montesquieu's  work  has  been 
more  criticised,  especially  by  his  con- 
temporaries, than  that  in  which  he  treats  of 
"the  Relations  existing  between  Laws  and 
Climate."  "  This  theory,"  said  Voltaire,  "  is 
taken  from  Chardin,  and  is  none  the  truer 
for  that."  Chardin,  moreover,  only  presented 
it  under  the  form  of  a  digression  in  the 
chapter  devoted  to  the  "  Palace  of  the  King's 
Wives."  He  borrowed  it  from  Galen,  who  was 
himself  inspired  by  Hippocrates.  The  idea 
was  no  novelty,  and  no  one  could  be  aston- 
ished to  see  it  dealt  with  by  a  historian  of  in- 
stitutions, except  critics  living  in  an  age  when 
those  who  boasted  of  legislating  according  to 
natural  laws  began  by  eliminating  from  their 
speculations  the  most  natural  elements,  —  air, 
soil,  country,  and  race.  Montesquieu's  error  is 
not  that  he  investigated  the  influence  of  the 


140  Montesquieu. 

elements,  but  that  he  considered  only  one  of 
them,  and  that,  too,  with  very  inadequate  data. 
His  notes  on  climates,  collected  at  random  and 
arranged  very  arbitrarily,  abounding  in  doubt- 
ful statements,  sown  with  paradoxes  and  in- 
genious observations,  would  have  furnished 
Montaigne  with  material  for  an  agreeable 
essay.  Montesquieu  endeavored  to  build  a 
system  upon  them,  and  the  whole  scaffolding 
went  down  under  the  weight. 

It  is  a  very  simple  matter  to  pick  up  the 
pieces  and  determine  the  cause  of  the  frac- 
tures. "  The  government  of  a  single  sovereign 
is  oftenest  found  in  fertile  countries,  and  the 
government  of  the  many  in  barren  ones ;  " 
parliamentary  government  has  been  set  up  in 
a  rich  agricultural  country,  while  the  sand- 
pits of  northern  Germany  have  to  this  day  re- 
mained impenetrable  to  it.  A  cold  climate, 
adds  Montesquieu,  will  produce  —  together 
with  more  strength  —  more  self-reliance,  more 
consciousness  of  superiority,  and  thus  less  de- 
sire for  vengeance ;  more  confidence  in  secu- 
rity, and  thus  more  freedom,  less  suspicion, 
less  policy  and  cunning.  Behold  the  numer- 
ous virtues  that  spring  from  frost  and  moisture  ! 
It  may  be  that  all  these  virtues  have  been  thus 
engendered,  but  a  combination  of  them  all  is 
far  to  seek.  The  qualities  first  mentioned  — 


Climate  and  Laws.  141 

strength,  self-reliance,  the  spirit  of  enterprise  — 
go  well  together,  and  I  recognize  them  in  the 
Normans,  in  the  Anglo-Saxons,  and  in  the 
Germans;  but  the  sequel  bewilders  me,  and  — 
to  cite  only  accepted  and  proverbial  truths  — 
explains  neither  the  Norman  shrewdness,  the 
perfidy  of  Albion,  nor  the  German  quarrel- 
someness.1 A  little  farther  on  we  find  heat 
producing  among  Asiatics  the  same  effects 
that  had  to  be  referred  to  cold  among  the 
Russians.  I  shall  not  press  the  matter  further. 
It  is  enough  to  have  shown  in  these  indiscre- 
tions one  side  of  Montesquieu's  character,  that 
in  which  —  to  adopt  his  own  theory  —  we  are 
inclined  to  suspect  the  influence  of  the  capri- 
cious climate  of  Gascony. 

To  tell  the  truth,  Montesquieu  cast  upon 
this  side  of  Nature  only  a  curious  glance,  an 
unceremonious  and  stolen  glance.  He  did  not 
see  that  these  different  conditions  of  human 
society,  —  climate,  country,  race,  the  last  very 
uncertain  and  obscure  in  its  data,  the  two  for- 
mer very  precarious  in  their  effects  and  dis- 
tinguishable only  in  great  bodies  and  masses 
of  men  —  are  only  primary  causes,  vague  and 
inaccessible.  He  did  not  see  that  from  these 

1  Une  qiierelle  cCAllemand  (a  German  quarrel)  is  the 
French  idiom  for  a  groundless  quarrel,  —  a  quarrel  which 
is  all  on  one  side.  —  TR. 


142  Montesquieu. 

primary  causes  flow  secondary  causes  produ- 
cing by  the  cumulative  force  of  their  effects 
the  real  and  vital  elements  of  social  phenom- 
ena; namely,  manners,  passions,  prejudices,  in- 
stincts, —  in  a  word,  the  national  character  of 
the  individual  and  of  the  people.  Montesquieu 
was  not  to  be  expected  to  know  a  science 
which  has  yet  to  formulate  its  methods,  to 
arrange  its  collections,  and  to  define  its  boun- 
daries; but 'he  discerned  its  principal  object 
when  he  wrote,  "  The  different  needs  of  differ- 
ent climates  have  formed  different  ways  of 
living,  and  these  different  ways  of  living  have 
formed  divers  kinds  of  laws."  This  view  was 
sufficient  to  throw  light  on  his  pathway,  and 
among  our  most  learned  modern  anthropolo- 
gists there  is  not  one  of  whom  it  can  be  said 
that  he  has  done  more  than  Montesquieu 
for  our  knowledge  of  man  in  his  relation  to 
society. 

He  considers  civil  laws  "  in  the  relations  they 
should  have  with  the  order  of  things  on  which 
they  are  based."  These  chapters  present  a 
great  picture  of  the  efforts  of  men  to  organize 
human  society,  and  would  merit  the  title  of 
an  "  Essay  on  the  Manners  and  Spirit  of  Na- 
tions "  much  better  than  Voltaire's  work  so 
entitled.  They  both  made  the  same  excursion 
through  the  history  of  mankind ;  but  Voltaire, 


Civil  Laws.  143 

as  has  been  very  well  said,  prepares  a  compen- 
dious chart  of  it,  while  Montesquieu  composes 
a  rational  account  of  it.  He  sees  the  under- 
tow of  currents  of  which  Voltaire  observes 
merely  the  surface.  Voltaire  does  not  seek 
the  necessary  relations  of  things,  but  likes  to 
point  out  everywhere  the  work  of  chance ; 
and  in  his  eagerness  to  exile  God  from  history, 
he  banishes  logic,  consistency,  conscience, 
and  human  judgment.  To  these  Montesquieu 
allows  their  proper  place. 

Montesquieu  gives  excellent  counsel  with 
regard  to  the  manner  of  drawing  up  and  word- 
ing the  laws.  In  his  chapters  on  the  laws  con- 
trolling private  life  may  be  found  his  views 
on  divorce,  of  which  he  was  a  partisan;  on 
bodily  constraint,  which  he  would  abolish  in 
civil  causes ;  on  registration  of  births,  mar- 
riages, and  deaths,  of  which  he  was  one  of  the 
promoters ;  and  on  expropriation,1  the  princi- 
ples of  which  he  laid  down.  We  should  honor 
him  greatly  for  his  ideas  on  slavery.  To  point 
out  its  abuses  and  dangers,  especially  in  a 
democracy,  was  no  useless  task.  Slavery  was 
a  recognized  institution  in  the  republic  of  the 

1  We  have  retained  the  French  word  expropriation,  which 
means  either  the  forcible  seizure  of  the  goods  of  a  debtor,  or 
the  seizure  of  property  for  public  purposes  in  consideration 
of  an  indemnity.  —  TR. 


144  Montesquieu. 

United  States,  which  did  not  get  rid  of  it  until 
after  nearly  a  century's  experience  and  a  strug- 
gle wherein  the  nation  almost  foundered.  It 
took  a  revolution  to  suppress  slavery  in  the 
French  colonies.  It  required  the  exhausted 
condition  of  governments  after  the  Empire  and 
the  great  truce  of  Vienna  in  1815,  to  make 
official  Europe  pay  any  attention  to  the  blacks, 
or  heed  the  appeal  that  Montesquieu  addressed 
to  it  more  than  half  a  century  before.  "  Nar- 
row minds  exaggerate  too  much,"  said  he,  with 
his  biting  irony,  "  the  injustice  done  to  the 
Africans;  for  if  this  injustice  were  such  as 
they  pretend,  would  it  not  have  entered  the 
minds  of  Europe's  rulers,  who  make  so  many 
useless  treaties,  to  make  a  general  one  in  favor 
of  mercy  and  pity?" 

Europe's  rulers  have  listened  to  this  humane 
counsel;  but  they  have  despised  the  wise  ad- 
vice that  Montesquieu  gave  them  in  his  chap- 
ters on  "  International  Law."  We  have  still 
to  choose,  in  this  respect,  between  an  ideal  law 
deduced  by  theorists  from  the  abstractions  of 
the  schools,  and  the  practical  jurisprudence 
followed  by  politicians.  Voltaire  styled  this 
the  "jurisprudence  of  highwaymen;  "  and 
Montesquieu,  always  more  deferential  to  hu- 
man nature  and  more  regardful  of  political 
decorum,  defined  it  as  "  a  science  which  teaches 


International  Law.  145 

princes  to  what  extent  they  can  violate  justice 
without  interfering  with  their  own  interests." 

"  Is  it  anything  else?  "  asked  Voltaire  in  his 
dialogue  on  Hobbes,  Grotius,  and  Montesquieu. 
"  '  Is  there  a  law  of  nations? '  '  I  am  sorry  for 
it/  replies  one  of  the  speakers,  '  but  there  is 
none,  except  to  be  continually  on  one's  guard. 
All  kings  and  ministers  are  of  this  opinion; 
and  thus  it  is  that  now,  in  Europe,  twelve 
hundred  thousand  mercenaries  parade  every 
day  in  time  of  peace.  Let  a  ruler  disband  his 
troops,  permit  his  fortifications  to  go  to  ruin, 
and  pass  his  time  in  reading  Grotius,  and  you 
shall  see  whether,  within  a  year  or  two,  he  will 
not  have  lost  his  kingdom.'  '  That  would  be 
a  great  injustice.'  '  I  agree  with  you.'  '  And 
is  there  no  remedy  for  it? '  '  None,  except  to 
put  himself  in  a  position  to  be  as  unjust  as  his 
neighbors.  Then  ambition  is  restrained  by 
ambition;  then  dogs  of  equal  strength  show 
their  teeth,  and  tear  each  other  only  when 
they  have  some  prey  to  dispute.'  "  Such  was 
the  wisdom  of  Europe  in  the  middle  of  the 
eighteenth  century. 

And  this  is  still  the  last  word  of  the  wisdom 
of  the  nineteenth  century,  after  a  hundred  and 
fifty  years  of  further  experience.  Millions  of 
men  have  again  been  sacrificed  without  one 
step  of  progress.  The  empirics  in  charge  of 


146  Montesquieu. 

nations  have  got  no  farther  in  their  political 
hygiene  than  the  frightful  blood-letting  of 
Broussais's  time.  "  Each  monarch,"  wrote 
Montesquieu,  "  keeps  on  foot  all  the  armies 
he  could  have  if  his  people  were  in  danger 
of  extermination,  and  calls  by  the  name  of 
peace  this  constant  straining  of  all  against  all. 
And  thus  Europe  is  so  ruined  that  private 
persons,  whose  affairs  were  as  badly  involved 
as  those  of  the  three  richest  nations  of  this 
part  of  the  world,  would  have  nothing  to  live 
on.  We  are  poor,  in  spite  of  the  wealth  and 
commerce  of  the  whole  world ;  and  soon,  by 
dint  of  having  soldiers,  we  shall  have  nothing 
but  soldiers,  and  shall  become  like  the  Tartars." 
Montesquieu  cannot  be  resigned  to  this ;  he 
seeks  a  remedy,  and  seeks  it  in  the  very  nature 
of  the  complaint.  He  does  not  separate  him- 
self from  the  actual  world.  He  enters  it,  min- 
gles with  it,  sees  it,  not  as  the  world  ought  to 
be,  but  as  it  is  and  as  it  acts.  "  In  Europe 
the  nations  are  well  matched  with  one  another, 
those  which  are  adjacent  having  almost  equal 
courage.  This  is  the  chief  cause  ...  of  the 
freedom  of  Europe."  Respect  for  the  law 
here  results,  not  in  harmony  of  views,  but  in 
opposition  of  powers.  "  Rulers  who  cannot 
live  together  under  civil  laws  are  not  free; 
they  are  governed  by  force;  they  must  con- 


International  Law.  147 

tinually  exert  force  or  submit  to  force.  .  .  . 
A  ruler  in  this  position  cannot  complain  of 
a  treaty  which  has  been  thrust  upon  him  by 
violence.  This  would  be  to  complain  of  his 
natural  condition."  Force  even  decides  the 
reputation  of  nations :  "  Victory  alone  decreed 
that  we  must  say  Punic  faith  instead  of  Roman 
faith."  War  is  the  basis  of  these  barbarous 
relations :  wars  offensive  and  defensive,  wars 
of  conquest,  wars  to  anticipate  an  attack  that 
is  feared,  and  to  avoid  a  conquest  that  seems 
threatened.  Everything  in  this  so-called  law 
of  nations  may  be  reduced  to  self-interest. 

Self-interest  is  its  only  sanction.  War  is  not 
a  right,  it  is  an  act  of  violence  ;  conquest  of  it- 
self creates  no  right.  "  It  belongs  to  the  con- 
queror to  repair  a  part  of  the  evil  he  has  done. 
I  define  the  right  of  conquest  thus :  a  neces- 
sary, legitimate,  and  unfortunate  right,  which 
always  leaves  an  immense  debt  to  humanity 
unpaid."  It  is  only  on  these  conditions  that 
conquest  is  justified,  and  that  the  conqueror 
acquires  any  rights  over  the  conquered  peo- 
ple. The  conqueror  gains  a  people  by  gov- 
erning it  well.  Consequently  there  is  a  natural 
limit  to  conquest,  namely,  power  of  assimilation. 
That  only  should  be  conquered  which  can  be 
kept  and  identified  with  the  realm.  States 
have  their  natural  proportions ;  and  the  limits 


148  Montesquieu. 

of  the  territory  they  can  well  govern  cannot  be 
overstepped  without  exhausting  their  strength 
and  destroying  their  vital  principle. 

All  the  rules  of  international  law  may  be 
reduced  to  this  maxim  and  summed  up  in 
this  precept:  "That  different  nations  ought 
in  peace  to  do  each  other  the  most  good, 
and  in  war  the  least  harm,  possible  without 
detriment  to  their  own  highest  interests."  It 
is  enough  to  compare  these  observations  of 
Montesquieu  with  the  practice  of  govern- 
ments, to  show  how  far  politicians  still  are 
from  conformity  with  humanity,  with  good 
sense,  and  with  experience. 

Montesquieu  hardly  did  more  than  point 
out  some  aspects  of  this  great  subject,  which 
he  looked  at  from  so  high  a  standpoint;  on 
the  other  hand  he  delighted  in  economic 
questions,  in  which  conjecture  has  so  large 
a  share,  and  in  which  facts,  incompletely  ob- 
served, and,  as  it  were,  heaped  up  around 
him,  dim  his  sight  and  too  often  mislead  him. 
His  greatest  merit  here  is  his  priority,  —  his 
attempt,  before  Adam  Smith,  to  give  a  scientific 
form  to  the  problems  of  political  economy. 

The  most  important  and  durable  part  of  this 
division  of  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws  "  is  the 
history  of  commerce  which  Montesquieu  has 
here  inserted.  It  is  broadly  planned,  and  flows 


Economic  Laws.  149 

on  in  a  noble  stream.  It  is  a  study  of  progress 
in  the  relations  between  the  communities  of 
men,  and  forms  a  grand  though  detached  chap- 
ter in  the  history  of  civilization.  Here  we  see 
commerce  gradually  advancing  from  "  vexa- 
tion and  despair  "  to  reach  security.  But  at 
the  cost  of  what  bloody  and  terrible  experi- 
ences, like  the  persecution  of  the  Jews  and 
that  of  the  Huguenots  in  France,  did  people 
arrive  at  conclusions  confirming  by  the  lessons 
of  self-interest  all  the  lessons  of  policy  !  "  It 
is  discovered  by  experience  that  nothing  gives 
prosperity  except  good  government." 

Montesquieu's  theory  of  trade  is  based  upon 
a  very  subtle  distinction  between  "  trade  in 
luxuries  "  designed  to  furnish  to  nations  what 
flatters  their  pride,  —  the  commerce  of  great 
monarchical  states ;  and  "  thrifty  trade,"  sub- 
sisting on  what  is  paid  for  transportation  and 
commission, — the  commerce  of  republics  and 
countries  of  small  extent.  Although  Montes- 
quieu discerns  England's  commercial  great- 
ness, he  deems  trade  essentially  the  business 
of  an  inferior  government  and  of  inferior  men. 
The  Romans  disdained  it,  and  the  French 
monarchy  had  nobler  cares.  Doubtless  wealth 
is  an  important  matter,  and  the  wealth  of  the 
state  tends  to  change  its  character,  owing  to 
the  more  extensive  use  of  transferable  securi- 


1 5  o  Mon  tesquieu. 

ties.  Montesquieu  is  quite  aware  of  this,  and 
says,  moreover,  that  "  the  nation  which  pos- 
sesses the  most  of  these  transferable  securities 
is  the  richest."  But  he  does  not  covet  this 
superiority  for  his  native  land.  Honor  and 
wealth,  that  is,  honor  and  trade,  cannot  subsist 
together,  —  I  mean  that  feudal  honor  which  is 
the  vital  principle  of  monarchical  government. 

As  to  the  other  kind,  the  popular  or  middle- 
class  honor,  Montesquieu  thinks  it  the  life  and 
backbone  of  trade.  If  his  opinions  on  com- 
merce show  the  prejudices  of  the  aristocracy 
of  the  robe,  his  decisions  show  us  the  good 
judge.  His  reflections  on  the  dangers  of 
speculation  and  gambling  as  substitutes  for 
laborious  business,  and  on  the  necessity  for 
maintaining  in  all  its  rigor  the  legislation  with 
regard  to  bankrupts,  deserve  to  be  given  all 
the  more  consideration,  because  the  facts  have 
most  forcibly  justified  his  anticipations.  He 
has  also  very  correct  views  touching  free  rates 
of  interest  and  touching  exchange. 

More  clearly  than  any  other  writer  Montes- 
quieu sets  forth  in  a  few  lines  the  problem  of 
tariffs  and  of  commercial  treaties.  The  hither- 
to insoluble  question  of  protection  and  free- 
trade  is  reduced  to  its  real  terms,  and  Mon- 
tesquieu indicates  the  way  in  which  it  is  best 
to  seek  its  solution :  "  Where  there  is  com- 


Economic  Laws.  151 

merce  there  are  customs.  The  object  of  com- 
merce is  the  exportation  and  importation  of 
goods,  for  the  advantage  of  the  state ;  and  the 
object  of  customs  is  a  certain  duty  on  the  said 
exportation  and  importation,  also  for  the  ad- 
vantage of  the  state.  The  state  must  then 
maintain  an  even  balance  between  its  customs 
and  its  commerce,  and  not  allow  these  two 
things  to  conflict." 

I  cite  in  connection  with  these  maxims  the 
example  which  illustrates  them  :  "  A  merely 
accidental  tribute,  not  depending  on  the  in- 
dustry of  the  nation,  on  the  number  of  its 
inhabitants,  or  on  the  cultivation  of  its  soil,  is 
a  poor  kind  of  wealth.  The  King  of  Spain, 
though  he  receives  vast  sums  from  his  custom- 
house at  Cadiz,  is  only  in  this  respect  a  single 
very  wealthy  person  in  a  very  poor  nation.  .  .  . 
If  some  provinces  of  Castile  yielded  him  a 
sum  equal  to  his  receipts  from  the  custom- 
house at  Cadiz,  his  power  would  be  much 
greater :  his  riches  would  be  merely  the  result 
of  the  wealth  of  his  country ;  these  provinces 
would  animate  all  the  rest,  and  they  would  all 
be  in  better  condition  to  sustain  their  respec- 
tive burdens.  Instead  of  a  great  treasure,  he 
would  have  a  great  people." 

Montesquieu  discerned  all  the  import  of 
commercial  relations  between  nations  :  "  Two 


152  Montesquieu. 

nations  trading  together  become  mutually  de- 
pendent." Well-managed  relations  and  well- 
arranged  commercial  treaties  bind  nations  to- 
gether in  the  most  salutary  way;  but  the 
contrary  is  not  less  true,  as  experience  has 
very  frequently  proved.  Montesquieu,  then, 
seems  to  have  generalized  too  hastily  when  he 
affirmed  that  "  the  natural  effect  of  commerce 
is  a  tendency  toward  peace."  Commerce  has 
need  of  peace,  but  engenders  a  spirit  of  very 
rude,  jealous,  and  suspicious  competition,  im- 
pelling to  conflicts  as  bitter  as  those  caused 
by  political  rivalries,  and  to  tariff  struggles  as 
implacable  as  wars  concerning  boundaries. 

If  Montesquieu  could  have  known  the  con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  he  would  have 
improved  his  chapters  on  democracy  in  more 
than  one  particular;  and  if  he  had  observed 
American  manners,  he  would  have  modified 
several  of  his  opinions  about  commerce.  I  do 
not  mean  that  he  had  no  presentiment  of  the 
future  awaiting  great  industrial  nations.  He 
pointed  out  the  principal  difficulties  such  na- 
tions experience  in  sustaining  their  public 
morals ;  they  must  contend  against  the  effects 
of  the  very  labor  by  which  they  live.  "  In 
countries  where  men  are  affected  only  by  the 
commercial  spirit,  they  make  a  traffic  of  all 
human  actions  and  of  all  moral  virtues ;  the 


Economic  Laws.  153 

most  trifling  things,  things  demanded  by  mere 
humanity,  are  done  or  given  for  money.  The 
commercial  spirit  produces  in  men  a  certain 
exacting  sense  of  justice,  opposed  on  the  one 
hand  to  extortion,  and  on  the  other  to  those 
moral  virtues  which  prevent  us  from  always 
insisting  inflexibly  upon  our  own  interests,  and 
which  allow  us  to  sacrifice  them  to  the  inter- 
ests of  others."  As  a  curiosity,  and  to  finish 
up  this  subject,  let  us  note  this  reflection  from 
the  close  of  the  chapter  on  "  Grecian  Com- 
merce " :  "  How  much  prosperity  Greece  de- 
rived even  from  the  games  to  which  she  drew, 
so  to  speak,  the  whole  world  !  "  Montesquieu, 
the  inventor  of  universal  expositions !  —  what 
an  interesting  note  to  add  to  the  story  of 
Pascal's  omnibus !  * 

By  isolating  Montesquieu's  grand  and  gen- 
erous views  on  the  duties  of  society  toward 
its  members,  we  might  discover  in  him  a  pre- 
cursor of  the  modern  state  socialism.  "  A  man 
is  not  poor  because  he  has  nothing,  but  be- 
cause he  does  not  work,"  he  says  at  the  begin- 
ning of  his  chapter  on  "  Hospitals  and  Work- 
houses ; "  and  he  goes  on :  "  The  state  owes  to 

1  More  than  a  century  and  a  half  before  the  final  intro- 
duction of  the  omnibus,  this  great  scientific  thinker  and  re- 
ligious recluse  seems  to  have  been  for  a  time  the  manager 
of  an  omnibus  line  at  Paris.  — TR. 


154  Montesquieu. 

all  its  citizens  an  assured  subsistence, —  food, 
suitable  clothing,  and  a  way  of  living  that  is 
not  opposed  to  health."  The  state  is  bound 
to  avert  industrial  crises,  "  in  order  to  prevent 
both  suffering  and  revolt."  The  method  is  to 
open  manual  training-schools,  to  facilitate  the 
practice  of  the  manual  arts,  and  to  insure  the 
workmen  against  attendant  risks.  In  commer- 
cial countries,  "  where  many  people  possess 
nothing  but  their  trade,  the  state  is  often 
obliged  to  provide  for  the  necessities  of  the 
aged,  the  sick,  and  the  orphans.  A  well- 
organized  government  will  derive  the  subsist- 
ence of  such  persons  from  the  funds  of  the 
trades  themselves;  it  will  assign  to  skilled 
workmen  the  labors  they  are  capable  of,  and 
by  teaching  the  rest  to  labor,  will  straightway 
create  another  employment."  Yet  let  us  not 
be  deceived :  Montesquieu  has  in  view  neither 
national  workshops  nor  the  right  of  employ- 
ment ;  and  what  he  sets  up  as  a  principle  is 
simply  the  practice  of  the  monarchs  of  the 
Old  Regime.  Compare  with  this  chapter  on 
"  Hospitals  and  Workhouses,"  Tocqueville's 
chapter  on  "  Methods  of  Administration  under 
the  Old  Regime,"  and  Montesquieu's  meaning 
will  be  plain. 

The  monarchy  he  thinks  of  is  always  the 
paternal  monarchy;  his  opinions  on  the  duties 


The  Theory  of  Feudal  Laws.      1 5  5 

of  the  government  to  the  subjects  of  the  prince 
are  a  part  of  the  same  conception  as  his  hie- 
rarchy of  privileged  orders  and  his  system  of 
prerogatives.  All  these  things  are  logical  con- 
sequences of  the  essential  principle  of  mon- 
archy and  the  feudal  character  of  its  origin. 
A  history  of  feudal  institutions,  that  is  to  say, 
of  the  historic  source  of  monarchy  and  privi- 
leged classes,  thus  formed  the  necessary  com- 
plement to  Montesquieu's  work,  having  many 
bonds  of  connection  —  doubtless  intricate  some- 
times, but  yet  perfectly  well-defined  —  with  all 
parts  of  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws." 

Though  very  much  opposed  in  this  respect, 
as  in  many  others,  to  his  contemporaries, — 
and,  let  us  add,  very  much  above  them,  — Mon- 
tesquieu was  interested  in  mediaeval  history. 
He  sought  the  law  of  his  country's  destinies  in 
the  obscure  beginnings  of  France.  The  noble- 
man's pride  was  piqued,  as  well  as  the  thinker's 
curiosity.  Both  attracted  him  toward  those 
mysterious  forests  whence  issued  along  with 
the  Germans,  his  alleged  ancestors,  the  elements 
of  political  liberty.  He  set  out  in  quest  of 
discoveries.  His  toil  was  severe,  his  inves- 
tigations slow  and  painful.  "  I  seem,"  he 
remarked,  "  all  at  sea,  and  in  a  shoreless  sea. 
All  these  cold,  dry,  tasteless,  and  difficult  writ- 
ings must  be  read,  must  be  devoured.  .  .  . 


156  Montesquieu. 

The  feudal  law  presents  a  noble  spectacle.  It 
is  like  an  ancient  oak-tree  raising  high  its  far- 
seen  tower  of  foliage ;  approaching,  we  behold 
the  trunk  but  not  the  roots ;  to  find  these  we 
must  delve  deep  in  the  earth." 

A  very  keen  controversy,  which  meanwhile 
broke  out,  confirmed  Montesquieu's  passion 
for  this  undertaking.  In  1727,  five  years  after 
the  death  of  their  author,  appeared  Count 
Boulainvilliers'  "  Historical  Memoirs  on  the 
Ancient  Governments  of  France."  His  thesis 
was  the  Germanic  conquest  and  liberty  by 
means  of  the  States-General.  The  conquerors 
who  had  subjected  Gaul  were,  according  to 
Boulainvilliers,  invested  by  the  very  fact  of 
conquest  with  the  right  and  duty  of  restraining 
the  royal  power.  The  Abbe  Dubos,  life  sec- 
retary of  the  French  Academy,  sustained  just 
the  opposite  thesis  in  his  "  Critical  History  of 
the  Establishment  of  the  French  Monarchy  in 
Gaul,"  which  appeared  in  1734.  In  his  opin- 
ion the  Germans,  besides  being  few  in  num- 
ber, had  entered  Gaul  not  as  conquerors,  but 
as  allies  of  the  Romans ;  and  their  settlement 
in  the  country  brought  in  no  new  institutions. 
The  chiefs  of  these  bands  received  from  the 
Romans  the  control  of  the  territories  they 
occupied,  and  governed  them  according  to 
Roman  usages.  The  revolution  which  created 


The  Theory  of  Feudal  Laws.      157 

France  took  place  only  very  slowly,  and  con- 
sisted in  the  transformation  of  governors  into 
lords.  It  was  the  rise  of  feudalism  that  estab- 
lished in  Gaul,  for  the  benefit  of  the  lords,  the 
system  of  rule  by  right  of  conquest. 

Montesquieu  prided  himself  on  his  German 
descent,  but  his  whole  spirit  was  Roman ;  and 
he  appeared  destined  to  harmonize  these  two 
conflicting  theories.  "  Count  Boulainvilliers 
and  the  Abbe  Dubos,"  said  he,  "  have  each 
framed  a  system ;  the  one  seems  to  conspire 
against  the  Third  Estate,  and  the  other  against 
the  nobility."  He  endeavored  to  occupy  mid- 
dle ground.  His  prejudice  inclined  him 
toward  the  side  of  Boulainvilliers,  whom  he 
treated  as  a  gentleman,  and  alienated  him  from 
Dubos,  whom  he  regarded  —  in  spite  of  their 
being  brother  academicians  —  as  an  upstart 
and  a  library  pedant.  He  criticised  Boulain- 
villiers with  respect;  he  never  agreed  with 
Dubos  except  with  an  air  of  disdain,  and  dis- 
puted his  propositions  only  by  ridicule. 

He  took  a  turn  around  his  subject,  as  it  were, 
before  entering  upon  it.  In  Book  XVIII., 
while  dealing  with  the  laws  in  their  relations 
to  the  nature  of  the  soil,  he  treats  of  the 
Prankish  kings,  of  their  coming  of  age,  of 
their  long  hair,  and  of  the  national  assemblies 
during  their  reigns.  He  takes  up  the  subject 


158  Montesquieu. 

again  in  Book  XXVIII.,  "  On  the  Origin  and 
Changes  of  the  Civil  Laws  among  the  French." 
He  defines  the  subject  broadly,  touches  upon 
one  side  of  it,  and  all  at  once  leaves  it.  "  I 
was  about  to  have  inserted  a  great  work  in 
another  great  work.  I  am  like  the  antiquary 
who  left  his  country,  went  to  Egypt,  cast  one 
glance  at  the  pyramids,  and  —  went  home." 
But  the  pyramids  had  an  irresistible  attraction 
for  him;  he  returned  to  them,  and  this  time 
wished  to  penetrate  their  secret.  After  finish- 
ing Books  XXX.  and  XXXI.  in  1748,  he  wrote : 
"  I  think  I  have  made  discoveries  in  the  most 
obscure  of  subjects,  though  it  is  after  all  a 
magnificent  subject." 

After  treating  of  the  origin  of  feudal  laws, 
taking  Caesar  and  Tacitus  as  his  authorities, 
and  the  codes  of  the  barbarians  as  their  com- 
mentary, he  joins  battle  with  Dubos.  He  en- 
deavors to  prove,  in  opposition  to  Dubos,  that 
the  lands  occupied  by  the  barbarian  chiefs 
paid  no  tribute.  This  is  the  point  on  which 
the  whole  debate  hinges.  "  In  these  pages,  in 
which  he  affirms  rather  than  discusses,  and 
ridicules  rather  than  refutes,"  says  M.  Vuitry, 
who  is  one  of  the  most  prudent  and  judi- 
cious arbitrators  of  this  great  historical  dis- 
pute, "  Montesquieu  does  not  destroy  the 
proofs  collected  by  Dubos,  at  least  those 


The  Theory  of  Feudal  Laws,      1 5  9 

touching  the  maintenance  of  the  Roman  trib- 
utes imposed  upon  the  Gallo-Romans  under 
the  early  Prankish  kings.  But  his  reasoning  is 
more  conclusive  and  peremptory  as  regards  the 
Franks,  and  we  cannot  fail  to  acknowledge  that, 
if  the  kings  often  tried  to  subject  these  latter  to 
tribute,  they  did  not  succeed  in  the  attempt" 

Montesquieu  studies  in  succession  the  ori- 
gins of  feudal  dues,  of  vassalage,  and  of  fiefs ; 
the  question  of  the  military  service  of  freemen ; 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  lords ;  the  transforma- 
tion of  benefices  into  fiefs ;  and  the  revolution 
that  rendered  fiefs  hereditary.  This  revolution 
ushered  in  feudal  government,  and  Montes- 
quieu connects  it  with  that  other  revolution 
changing  the  reigning  dynasty,  and  uniting 
with  a  great  fief  the  royalty  which,  in  the  dis- 
persion of  power,  had  lost  its  domain.  From 
these  two  contemporaneous  and  connected 
events  he  deduces  as  a  first  consequence  the 
right  of  primogeniture.  Before  this,  the  fiefs 
had  been  held  at  the  pleasure  of  the  crown 
which  shared  them.  Thenceforward  the  crown 
became  hereditary,  as  the  fiefs  had  become. 
Then  followed  the  transfer  of  the  fiefs  to 
strangers,  and  the  peculiar  rights  of  suzerainty, 
—  the  right  of  lods  et  -ventes}  the  right  of  re- 

1  The  right  of  the  lord  to  a  payment  from  any  one  pur- 
chasing an  estate  within  his  manor.  —  TR. 


1 60  Montesquieu. 

purchase,  the  right  of  garde-noble?-  the  laws 
of  homage,  and  that  principle  of  old  French 
law  that  inherited  real  estate  does  not  retro- 
cede.  "  I  end  my  treatment  of  fiefs,"  Montes- 
quieu then  writes,  "where  most  writers  begin 
it."  He  abruptly  suspends  his  task  on  this 
page;  and  with  this  fine  piece  of  juridical  ex- 
position, he  closes  these  three  books  in  which, 
according  to  the  judgment  of  a  master,  "  he 
has  thrown  out  his  views  on  the  origin  of  our 
social  institutions  with  so  much  power,  but  in 
so  capricious  and  disorderly  a  manner." 

Since  Montesquieu's  time  the  study  of  the 
Middle  Ages,  then  still  a  subject  of  much  grop- 
ing and  conjecture,  has  brought  forth  a  science 
which  now  occupies  an  important  place  in  our 
historical  schools.  The  deeper  studies  that 
have  been  undertaken,  based  upon  the  inves- 
tigation of  original  sources,  have  renewed  and 
extended  in  a  very  remarkable  way  the  dis- 
sensions that  divided  the  learned  Frenchmen 
contemporary  with  Montesquieu.  These  con- 
troversies are  still  carried  on  with  great  vigor 
among  us ;  and  if  the  lists  appear  to  be  closed, 
the  tilting  is  not  yet  over.  Montesquieu,  al- 
though seamed  with  many  scars  and  withdrawn 

1  The  right  of  a  surviving  noble  parent  to  enjoy  the  in- 
heritance of  the  children  until  they  should  reach  a  certain 
age.  — TR. 


The  Theory  of  Feudal  Laws.      161 

from  the  contest,  still  makes  a  great  figure. 
He  marked  off  the  ground,  and  gave  the  first 
impulse  to  investigation.  "  History,"  said  he, 
"  must  be  explained  by  the  laws,  and  the  laws 
by  history."  He  really  founded  a  science,  and 
left  a  method  for  his  followers. 

These  two  great  episodes  on  commerce  and 
feudal  laws  do  not,  as  readily  as  the  preceding 
chapters,  admit  of  literary  by-play  and  orna- 
mental flourishes.  They  form,  as  it  were,  long 
galleries  very  well  lighted,  but  rather  cold  and 
bare.  To  adorn  them,  Montesquieu  could  do 
no  more  than  arrange  busts  and  statues  at  in- 
tervals ;  and  this  is  what  he  has  done.  There 
are  two  of  these  statues  that  stand  higher  than 
all  the  rest,  both  by  reason  of  the  greatness  of 
the  subjects  and  the  beauty  of  the  execution, — 
Alexander  and  Charlemagne,  conquerors  and 
civilizers.  In  the  likeness  of  these  heroes 
Montesquieu  personifies  whatever  his  historic 
genius  has  shown  him  that  is  great  and  noble 
in  the  art  of  government 

"  Italiam  !  Italiam ! "  he  exclaims  as  he 
reaches  the  goal  he  had  set  to  his  journey. 
He  does  not  conclude,  he  does  not  shut  the 
book,  but  leaves  it,  as  it  were,  open  toward 
the  future. 


ii 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

CRITICISM  AND  DEFENCE  OF  "  THE  SPIRIT  OF 
THE  LAWS."  —  MONTESQUIEU'S  LAST  YEARS. 
-  HIS  INFLUENCE  IN  EUROPE  UNDER  THE 
OLD  REGIME.  —  HIS  VIEWS  ON  THE  FRENCH 
GOVERNMENT. 


"  nr^HE  Spirit  of  the  Laws  "  was  printed  at 
•1-  Geneva,  where  it  appeared  in  the  month 
of  November,  1748,  in  two  quarto  volumes.  The 
author's  name  was  not  given,  but  everybody 
supplied  the  name  of  Montesquieu.  The  book 
found  its  way  into  the  hands  of  all  respectable 
people  in  France,  although  the  censors  had 
not  authorized  its  circulation.  Its  success  was 
very  decided,  but  critics  were  not  lacking. 
Montesquieu  was  really  too  great  a  man  not 
to  be  envied.  He  shocked  too  many  preju- 
dices and  exploded  too  many  accepted  notions, 
not  to  arouse  protests.  He  gave  a  special 
shock  to  the  prejudice  of  pure  reason,  and 
exploded  the  arbitrary  perfection  of  those  re- 
formers who  would  make  a  clean  sweep  and 
begin  anew.  This  class  of  speculators  has  al- 
ways rebelled  against  experience.  They  con- 


Criticism  and  Defence.  163 

demned  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws  "  without  a 
hearing,  and  scouted  the  historic  method  with- 
out attempting  to  apply  it. 

Montesquieu  had  one  friend  in  this  school. 
This  was  Helvetius,  who  composed  a  treatise 
on  "  Mind  "  :  in  general,  but  did  not  under- 
stand the  mind  of  Montesquieu.  What  he 
lacked  in  profundity  he  made  up  in  assurance ; 
and  he  summed  up  in  a  few  lines  all  the  ob- 
jections of  abstract  political  theorists  against 
"The  Spirit  of  the  Laws":  "You  often 
ascribe  to  the  world  a  reasonableness  and  a 
wisdom  which  is  really  only  your  own.  ...  A 
writer  desiring  to  be  useful  to  men  ought  to  be 
too  busy  with  maxims  true  for  the  future,  to 
lend  his  sanction  to  those  which  endanger  the 
present  order  of  things.  ...  I  know  but  two 
classes  of  governments,  the  good  and  the  bad ; 
and  the  good  are  yet  to  be  formed."  Helve- 
tius thought  that  Montesquieu  made  politics 
too  complicated;  that  his  remedies  acted  too 
slowly  and  required  too  much  patience  on  the 
part  of  the  physician,  too  much  virtue  on  the 
part  of  the  patient.  Why  such  minute  direc- 
tions as  to  diet  and  regimen?  A  good  pre- 

1  "  De  1'esprit."  At  the  close  of  the  paragraph  there  is  an 
allusion  to  the  word  esprit  (spirit,  mind,  wit)  occurring  in  the 
titles  of  the  two  books,  —  that  by  Helvetius  and  that  by 
Montesquieu.  —  TR. 


1 64  Montesquieu. 

scription  was  so  easy  to  find,  and  a  good 
panacea  so  easy  to  take !  "  My  intention," 
said  Montesquieu  of  some  one  who  criticised 
him  in  this  fashion,  "  was  to  do  my  work,  and 
not  his."  Helvetius,  who  dreaded  the  effect 
of  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws "  on  his  friend's 
reputation,  would  have  gained  by  exchanging 
with  him. 

Montesquieu  had  shown  that  he  despised 
tax-farming,  publicans,  and  revenue  contrac- 
tors of  every  kind ;  and  one  of  them,  Claude 
Dupin  by  name,  wished  to  be  avenged,  and 
compiled  in  1749  certain  "Reflections  on  Some 
Parts  of  a  Book  entitled  '  The  Spirit  of  the 
Laws.' "  This  title  was  foolish,  and  the  book 
was  no  better.  "  If  you  aspire  to  a  position," 
said  Dupin,  "  you  will  do  well  to  take  another 
road ;  this  will  not  lead  to  one."  The  position 
Montesquieu  aspired  to  was  one  that  the  Du- 
pins  do  not  control.  "  Behold  me,"  he  wrote 
to  a  friend,  "  cited  before  a  tax-gatherer's  tri- 
bunal." Dupin  dared  not  carry  the  matter 
through,  and  contented  himself  with  seeing  his 
two  volumes  in  secret  circulation.  Though 
there  were  no  reflections  in  this  book,  there 
were  at  least  just  remarks.  Montesquieu  was 
not  free  from  inadvertences  and  oversights. 
Dupin  pointed  out  these  mistakes,  and  Vol- 
taire took  advantage  of  this  when  he  aimed 


Criticism  and  Defence.          165 

at  Montesquieu  the  composition  called  "The 
ABC,"  in  1768,  and  his  "  Commentary  on  the 
Spirit  of  the  Laws,"  in  1777. 

Voltaire  was  preparing  his  "  Essay  on  Man- 
ners "  when  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws "  ap- 
peared, and  it  seems  that  this  masterpiece 
annoyed  him.  He  did  not  like  Montesquieu  ; 
and  Montesquieu  showed  little  taste  for  Vol- 
taire, seeing  in  him  scarcely  more  than  a  lit- 
erary blackguard.  "  It  would  be  a  disgrace  to 
the  Academy  if  Voltaire  were  a  member:  and 
it  will  one  day  be  his  disgrace  that  he  was  not 
one.  .  .  .  He  has  too  much  wit  to  understand 
me,"  added  Montesquieu.  Voltaire  only  half 
listened  and  half  understood.  He  was  arrested 
by  trifles,  and  hardly  perceived  the  main  drift. 
When  Montesquieu  was  attacked,  Voltaire 
praised  him;  and  when  Montesquieu  was 
praised,  Voltaire  attacked  him,  always  galling 
even  when  he  appeared  to  caress,  and  after- 
ward covering  the  wound  with  little  flowers. 
Yet  he  uttered  this  fine  saying,  the  antidote  to 
many  epigrams :  "  The  human  race  had  lost 
its  titles ;  M.  de  Montesquieu  found  them 
again  and  restored  them." 

What  Voltaire  enjoyed  most  about  "  The 
Spirit  of  the  Laws "  was  the  opposition  it 
aroused  among  the  clergy.  The  Jesuits  con- 
demned it  with  civil  phrases  in  the  "Trevoux 


1 6  6  Mo  n  tesquieu. 

Journal ; "  the  Jansenists  attacked  it  with  acri- 
mony in  the  "  Ecclesiastical  News "  for  the 
months  of  April  and  October,  1749.  Both 
parties  took  Montesquieu  to  task  concerning 
Spinozism,  climates,  the  Stoics,  suicide,  Mon- 
tezuma,  polygamy,  divorce,  and  Julian  the 
Apostate.  But  these  were  only  preliminary 
skirmishes.  They  directed  all  the  strength  of 
their  argument  against  the  chapter  on  religion, 
which  was  in  their  view  the  weak  point;  and 
against  the  one  on  toleration,  in  which  Mon- 
tesquieu had  laid  himself  open  to  attack. 
Montesquieu,  said  they,  considers  all  religions 
as  matters  of  policy;  he  does  not  distinguish 
the  true  religion,  which  has  all  rights,  from  the 
false  religions,  which  have  none.  They  branded 
him  as  an  infidel,  and  convicted  him  of  con- 
tradictory statements.  "  The  parentheses  that 
the  author  inserts  to  inform  us  that  he  is  a 
Christian  give  slight  assurance  of  his  Catholi- 
cism," wrote  the  editor  of  the  "  News."  "  The 
author  would  laugh  at  our  simplicity  if  we 
should  take  him  for  what  he  is  not."  Mon- 
tesquieu was  inclined  to  tolerate  the  Huguenots 
in  France,  and  to  prohibit  the  missions  to 
China.  The  "  Trevoux  Journal "  and  the  "  Ec- 
clesiastical News  "  advocated  precisely  the  op- 
posite policy.  They  therefore  concluded  that 
"  '  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws '  gave  up  the  case 


Criticism  and  Defence.  1 6  7 

against  the  ancient  and  modern  persecutors  of 
the  Christian  religion."  The  Jansenist  review 
wound  up  with  a  hearty  denunciation,  and  an 
appeal  to  the  secular  arm  against  a  book 
"  which  teaches  men  to  regard  the  incentives 
of  virtue  as  useless  in  monarchies." 

Montesquieu,  sensitive  to  such  insinuations, 
published  a  "  Defence  of  the  Spirit  of  the 
Laws,"  which  appeared  in  April,  1750.  The 
piece  is  brilliant,  and  full  of  fine  irony.  Mon- 
tesquieu does  justice  to  his  thought,  garbled 
by  fragmentary  citations.  He  disproves  most 
of  the  detailed  criticisms,  but  he  does  not  dis- 
pose of  the  fundamental  points.  To  establish 
his  orthodoxy  and  make  his  submission,  he 
would  have  had  to  disavow  the  essential  prin- 
ciple of  his  "  Spirit  of  the  Laws,"  and  burn 
half  his  work.  He  did  not  submit,  and  ended 
as  he  should  have  begun,  by  despising  such 
criticism.  "  To  condemn  the  book  would  be 
nothing,"  he  wrote  to  a  friend ;  "  I  should  have 
to  destroy  it."  The  Sorbonne  was  not  equal 
to  the  emergency.  It  took  up  the  matter, 
but  the  doctors  could  not  agree  on  the  main 
counts  in  the  indictment.  The  work  was  de- 
nounced to  the  assembly  of  the  clergy,  who 
gave  but  little  heed  to  the  accusers.  The  con- 
gregation of  the  Sacred  College  put  the  book 
upon  their  index ;  but  little  was  said  of  this, 


1 68  Montesquieu. 

and  no  one  minded  it.  Malesherbes,  meanwhile, 
gained  control  of  the  censorship,  and  removed 
the  injunction  excluding  "  The  Spirit  of  the 
Laws "  from  France.  This  masterpiece  of 
French  genius  thus  received,  toward  the  close 
of  1750,  its  naturalization  papers.  Twenty-two 
editions  were  printed  in  less  than  two  years, 
and  it  was  translated  into  all  languages. 

The  Italians  were  enthusiastic  over  it;  the 
English  paid  it  signal  homage ;  the  King  of 
Sardinia  had  his  son  read  it;  Frederick  the 
Great,  who  had  annotated  the  "  Considerations 
on  the  Romans,"  did  not  fail  to  make  some 
reservations  with  regard  to  "  The  Spirit  of  the 
Laws."  "  M.  de  Maupertuis  has  informed 
me,"  wrote  Montesquieu,  "  that  he  [Frederick] 
had  found  some  passages  he  could  not  assent 
to.  I  answered  that  I  would  wager  confi- 
dently that  I  could  put  my  finger  on  the  pas- 
sages." But  Frederick,  who  appropriated 
what  suited  him  from  every  source,  was  careful 
not  to  neglect  Montesquieu's  counsels;  and 
the  history  of  his  government  of  Silesia  may 
serve  as  a  commentary  on  the  wise  maxims 
of  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws  "  with  regard  to 
conquests. 

Montesquieu  lived  to  have  a  foretaste  of  his 
great  fame.  In  his  old  age  he  enjoyed  the 
admiration  of  all  Europe.  He  wrote  little 


His  Last  Years.  169 

more.  "  Lysimachus,"  a  fine  Stoic  fragment ; 
the  charming  tale  of  "  Arsaces  and  Ismene ;  " 
and  an  "  Essay  on  Taste,"  intended  for  the 
"  Encyclopaedia,"  are  all  that  are  left  of  his 
later  years.  He  divided  his  time  between 
Paris  and  La  Brede,  enjoying  his  estate,  but 
enjoying  still  more  the  society  of  his  friends. 
He  became  blind,  and  endured  this  great  trial 
with  serenity.  "  It  seems  to  me,"  said  he, 
"  that  the  little  light  left  me  is  but  the  dawning 
of  the  day  when  my  eyes  shall  close  forever." 
It  was  one  of  the  aims  of  his  life  and  his 
heart's  desire  to  die,  as  he  expressed  it,  "  with 
hope  on  his  side."  He  had  a  stoical  soul, 
but  closed  his  life  as  a  submissive  and  rev- 
erent Christian.  He  expired  at  Paris  on  the 
loth  of  February,  1755,  in  his  sixty-seventh 
year. 

His  fame  was  not  overestimated.  It  has 
only  grown  stronger  and  greater  with  time. 
He  thought  much  about  the  judgment  of 
posterity  and  the  future  of  his  book.  "  My 
work,"  said  he,  "  will  be  more  approved  than 
read."  He  might  have  added,  —  oftener  read 
than  understood,  and  oftener  understood  than 
applied.  Montesquieu's  Hippocratic  hygiene, 
despised  by  theorists,  exasperated  mere  em- 
pirics. Moderation  was  the  key-note  of  his 
advice  to  princes,  and  all  the  governments  of 


1 70  Montesquieu. 

Europe  were  on  the  verge  of  decline  through 
the  abuse  of  power.  In  practice,  the  drift  of 
the  time  was  toward  enlightened  despotism ; 
in  doctrine,  toward  natural  rights.  Thinkers 
and  politicians  accepted  in  Montesquieu  what 
suited  their  turn,  but  his  method  escaped  them. 
They  may  be  seen  invoking  his  authority  in 
details,  while  despising  his  spirit;  and  putting 
into  practice  reforms  that  he  advocated,  while 
violating  the  rules  he  prescribed. 

D'Alembert  wrote  a  "  Eulogy  "  of  Montes- 
quieu, and  appended  to  it  an  "  Analysis  of  the 
Spirit  of  the  Laws,"  in  which  he  connects  the 
book  and  its  author  with  the  Encyclopedists. 
Beccaria,  whose  book  was  inspired  by  the 
chapters  on  the  criminal  laws,  is  a  mere  jurist, 
who  makes  deductions  but  no  observations. 
Filangieri  imitates  Montesquieu  and  endeavors 
to  improve  upon  him :  "  Montesquieu  is  ab- 
sorbed in  giving  reasons  for  what  has  been 
done;  and  I  try  to  deduce  rules  for  what 
ought  to  be  done."  Bielfeld  derives  from 
Montesquieu  all  that  is  essential  in  his  "  Po- 
litical Institutions,"  but  floods  the  work  with 
natural  rights,  and  tries  by  this  mixture  to  har- 
monize "  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws "  with  the 
system  of  Wolf. 

Princes  as  well  as  philosophers  found  a  use 
for  Montesquieu.  "  His  work  is  my  manual," 


His  Influence  in  Europe.          171 

said  Catherine  the  Great  She  made  extracts 
from  it,  and  presented  them  for  the  considera- 
tion of  her  pompous  commission  on  the  Rus- 
sian code.  But  if  she  lavished  on  her  subjects 
showy  maxims  on  the  equality  and  liberty  of 
mankind,  she  was  practically  imbued  with  the 
rule  of  the  master  "  that  an  extensive  em- 
pire naturally  implies  unlimited  power  in  the 
ruler."  From  this  she  concluded  that  the 
best  way  to  sustain  the  Russian  government 
was  to  strengthen  its  main-stay,  namely,  the 
autocracy. 

The  framers  of  the  Prussian  Code  of  1792 
did  not  escape  the  influence  of  "  The  Spirit  of 
the  Laws."  Their  work  as  a  whole  breathes 
nothing  but  enlightened  despotism ;  but  the 
administrative  councils,  controlling  and  re- 
straining one  another,  the  life-tenure  of  the 
state  officers,  assuring  their  independence,  the 
considerable  part  taken  by  the  nobles  in 
the  administration  of  local  affairs,  the  rigorous 
maintenance  of  the  hierarchy  and  of  castes, 
the  exclusion  of  the  nobility  from  commercial 
pursuits,  —  all  recall  Montesquieu's  proposed 
measures  for  maintaining  the  vital  principle  of 
monarchy. 

In  France,  Montesquieu  was  always  consid- 
ered seditious  by  pedants  and  pious  people. 
They  accused  him  of  unsettling  the  altar  and 


172  Montesquieu. 

the  throne.  Crevier  undertook  to  demonstrate 
this  with  illustrative  citations,  and  published 
in  1764  a  volume  entitled  "  Observations  on 
the  Book  called  '  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws.'  " 
Crevier  knew  ancient  history,  and  he  had  little 
trouble  in  detecting  mistakes,  here  and  there, 
in  Montesquieu ;  but  his  mind  being  naturally 
heavy,  he  had  still  less  trouble  in  demonstrat- 
ing his  own  dulness.  He  took  up  the  argu- 
ment of  the  "  Ecclesiastical  News,"  and  seeing 
in  Montesquieu  only  a  literary  man  desirous 
of  an  unwholesome  notoriety,  he  found  noth- 
ing in  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws  "  but  the 
spirit  of  vanity,  paradox,  and  faction.  "  In 
order  to  love  mankind,  he  neglects  to  love 
his  country  as  he  should.  .  .  .  Englishmen 
may  be  flattered  by  reading  this  work,  but 
good  Frenchmen  can  only  be  mortified  by 
its  perusal." 

Crevier  was  right  in  thus  speaking  of  the 
English.  They  showed  they  were  flattered  by 
the  book,  and  what  was  better  they  profited 
by  it.  Till  then  they  had  made  practical 
use  of  their  constitution  without  analyzing  it. 
Montesquieu  gave  them  a  reason  for  their  laws. 
He  gained  disciples  among  them,  one  of  whom 
was  Blackstone;  and  all  commentators  on  the 
English  constitution  depend  on  Blackstone. 
Among  these  disciples  we  must  include  De 


His  Influence  in  Europe.          173 

Lolme,  of  Geneva,  whose  work  appeared  in 
1771,  and  gave  a  detailed  description  of  the 
English  constitution,  of  which  Montesquieu 
had  presented  only  the  principles  and  general 
rules. 

Long  before  Europeans  thought  of  apply- 
ing these  maxims  to  the  ancient  monarchical 
institutions  of  the  Continent,  Americans,  by  a 
bolder  experiment,  applied  them  to  a  democ- 
racy. Montesquieu  had  foreseen  that  Eng- 
land's American  colonies  would  separate  from 
the  mother  country,  and  had  pointed  to  a  fed- 
eral constitution  as  the  only  device  to  harmo- 
nize those  elements  which  antiquity  had  never 
exhibited  in  combination,  —  extensive  territory, 
democracy,  and  a  republican  form  of  govern- 
ment. Washington  was  acquainted  with  "  The 
Spirit  of  the  Laws ; "  and  the  influence  of  this 
book  on  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  cannot  be  denied.  The  Amer- 
icans profited  by  Montesquieu's  views  on  the 
distribution  of  power';  they  established  democ- 
racy within  the  narrower  limits  of  the  States  of 
the  Union,  and  made  the  federal  government 
a  republic.  They  were  able  to  organize  this 
democracy  and  this  republic  because  of  the 
simplicity  of  their  manners.  They  inherited 
from  their  Puritan  ancestors  the  intense  re- 
ligious feeling,  the  spirit  of  subordination,  the 


1 74  Montesquieu. 

self-denial,  which  were,  according  to  Mon- 
tesquieu, the  essential  republican  virtues. 
Though  modifying  the  provisions  of  the  laws 
which  Montesquieu  advised  republics  to  adopt, 
they  justified  his  underlying  thought  and  com- 
pleted his  work. 

The  traditions  and  the  manners  that  gave 
the  Americans  their  strength  in  the  Revolution 
did  not  exist  in  France.  Everything  consid- 
ered, the  country  was  nearer  to  the  Rome 
of  Caesar  than  to  the  England  of  Cromwell. 
Montesquieu  never  thought  of  France  as  either 
a  democracy  or  a  republic.  It  was  in  the  old 
French  laws  that  he  found  the  spirit  of  mon- 
archy. He  never  thought  of  importing  Eng- 
lish institutions  into  his  country, — this  would 
have  been  contrary  to  his  system  of  climates ; 
his  intention  was  merely  to  revive  the  essen- 
tial principles  of  the  "fundamental  laws"  of 
France. 

In  Montesquieu's  ideal  French  monarchy 
we  should  see  the  king  restrained  by  the  privi- 
leged and  dependent  classes;  no  States-Gen- 
eral, but  a  magistracy,  the  guardian  of  the 
fundamental  laws;  a  nobility  forbidden  to 
engage  in  trade;  no  great  commercial  com- 
panies, because  these  would  destroy  the  sa- 
cred order  of  intermediate  classes  by  array- 
ing wealth  against  political  power  ;  a  paternal, 


Views  on  French  Government.        175 

enlightened,  intelligent  government,  guiding 
the  French  not  only  generously  but  judiciously, 
putting  no  constraint  either  upon  their  man- 
ners or  their  virtues,  —  above  all,  never  boring 
them,  for  that  would  be  unendurable,  —  and 
allowing  them  to  do  frivolous  things  seriously 
and  serious  things  gayly;  honor  in  everything, 
toleration  for  believers,  glory  for  noblemen, 
civil  liberty  for  the  people ;  no  distant  expe- 
ditions and  few  colonies ;  no  more  of  those 
enterprises  increasing  absolute  power  only  at 
the  expense  of  our  relative  strength ;  in  a 
word,  moderation  abroad  as  well  as  at  home, 
"  since  France  is  of  exactly  the  size  it  ought 
to  be."  Good  kings  and  wise  ministers  are 
the  main  dependence  of  such  a  government. 
France  has  furnished  illustrious  examples  of 
both :  Charlemagne,  the  central  figure  in  his- 
tory; Saint  Louis,  representing  "law,  justice 
and  magnanimity;"  Louis  XII.,  "the  best 
citizen ;  "  Henry  IV.,  "  who  needs  but  to  be 
named;"  then,  Coligny,  Turenne,  and  Catinat; 
on  the  other  hand,  as  a  contrast  and  a  warn- 
ing, Richelieu  and  Louvois  the  instruments  of 
despotism,  and  Louis  XIV.  the  despot. 

Montesquieu  outlined  his  ideal  without  per- 
ceiving that  France  as  he  described  it  rendered 
impossible  France  as  he  conceived  it.  He 
would  fain  restore  vigor  to  dying  institutions. 


1 76  Montesquieu. 

Their  vital  principle  was  corrupted,  and  he  had 
himself  proved  that  when  the  principle  be- 
comes corrupt  the  government  is  near  its  fall. 
The  crown  levelled  all  and  encroached  on  all. 
It  absorbed  all  powers,  and  brought  all  ranks 
into  the  same  cringing  posture  before  itself. 
The  nobles  were  degraded  to  the  position  of 
courtiers;  now,  "the  character  of  the  majority 
of  courtiers  is  marked  by  indolent  ambition, 
mean-spirited  pride,  lust  for  wealth  without 
labor,  antipathy  to  truth,  flattery,  treachery, 
perfidy,  neglect  of  all  engagements,  contempt 
for  civic  duties,  dread  of  virtue  in  the  prince, 
and  hope  based  upon  his  weaknesses,  —  above 
all,  an  ingrained  habit  of  sneering  at  virtue : 
such,  I  believe,  at  all  times  and  places  is  the 
shameful  brand."  Even  honor  fails  to  take 
the  place  of  the  missing  virtues,  for  their  spuri- 
ous and  servile  honor  is  only  another  mark  of 
their  degradation.  "  They  can  be  at  the  same 
time  covered  with  infamy  and  with  honors." 
These  nobles  "  consider  it  an  honor  to  obey  a 
king,  but  regard  it  as  a  supreme  disgrace  to 
share  their  power  with  the  people."  Even 
were  they  willing,  they  could  not  do  this. 
"  Their  natural  ignorance,  their  inattention, 
their  contempt  for  civil  government,"  render 
them  incapable  of  it.  The  magistracy,  dis- 
credited by  the  crown,  could  not  assume  the 


Views  on  French  Government.       177 

duties  of  the  nobility.  All  was  crumbling,  and 
the  fall  of  the  buttresses  announced  the  speedy 
ruin  of  the  edifice. 

This  was  readily  seen  when,  under  Louis 
XVI.,  the  attempt  was  made  to  govern  accord- 
ing to  Montesquieu's  plan  by  restoring  author- 
ity to  the  courts  and  influence  to  the  privileged 
classes.  The  maxims  of  "  The  Spirit  of  the 
Laws  "  were  cited  against  Turgot  and  his  re- 
forms, and  the  resistance  to  these  reforms 
finally  precipitated  the  Revolution.  This  at- 
tempt to  return  to  the  Old  Regime  only  tended 
to  make  monarchy  more  unpopular  and  the 
privileged  classes  more  odious. 

Only  in  respect  to  foreign  policy  did  Mon- 
tesquieu's counsels  prevail  and  produce  their 
beneficial  effect.  The  policy  of  Vergennes  is 
an  excellent  application  of  "The  Spirit  of 
the  Laws  "  to  diplomacy.  When  we  read  the 
state  papers  that  this  wise  minister  addressed 
to  Louis  XVI.  with  reference  to  the  Bavarian 
succession,  we  seem  to  be  reading  an  exposi- 
tion of  this  sentence,  closing  the  chapter  on 
War  in  the  book  on  International  Law :  "  People 
should  not  talk  of  the  glory  of  a  prince,  or 
rather  say  his  vainglory ;  he  may  have  a  pas- 
sion for  glory,  but  has  no  legitimate  right  to 
it.  His  reputation  for  power  might  indeed  in- 
crease the  strength  of  his  government,  but  his 


178  Montesquieu. 

reputation  for  justice  would  strengthen  it  as 
much." 

This  brings  us  to  the  French  Revolution, 
which  Montesquieu  did  not  foresee  though  he 
contributed  to  pave  the  way  for  it,  and  which 
he  often  inspired  but  never  guided. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

MONTESQUIEU  AND  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION. 

AT  the  close  of  the  last  century  every  en- 
lightened Frenchman  had  in  his  library 
a  Montesquieu,  a  Voltaire,  a  Rousseau,  and  a 
Buffon.  The  convocation  of  the  States-Gen- 
eral invited  every  Frenchman  to  give  his  views 
on  governmental  reforms,  and  each  ran  to  his 
favorite  authors  to  prime  himself  with  ideas 
or  arguments  in  favor  of  the  principles  he 
wished  to  see  prevail.  Rousseau  and  Mon- 
tesquieu were  the  ones  most  often  consulted ; 
Rousseau  gained  more  disciples,  but  Montes- 
quieu furnished  more  quotations;  Rousseau 
expounded  only  one  system,  —  his  own,  — 
while  Montesquieu  set  forth  all  those  which 
history  had  garnered.  "  The  Spirit  of  the 
Laws"  became  a  sort  of  digest;  all  parties 
drew  from  it  maxims  and  precedents  to  sup- 
port their  wishes  or  their  claims. 

The  intelligent  nobles  adopted  its  inner 
spirit  as  well  as  quoted  its  letter.  The  votes 
of  these  nobles  form  nothing  less  than  Mon- 


180  Montesquieu. 

tesquieu's  memorial  to  the  States-General.  In 
them  may  be  perceived  his  predilection  for 
monarchical  liberty,  and  his  conviction  that 
this  liberty  could  in  France  be  based  only  upon 
the  prerogatives  of  the  privileged  classes.  The 
Third  Estate  borrowed  from  him  the  system 
of  division  of  power;  but  it  claimed  equality 
and  civil  liberty  as  the  basis  of  political  lib- 
erty, and  all  Montesquieu's  plan  of  French 
government  was  thus  annihilated. 

In  the  Revolution  the  principles  of  the 
Third  Estate  prevailed.  After  the  night  of 
August  4,  Montesquieu's  monarchy  was  but 
a  Utopian  dream  of  the  emigrated  nobility. 
"  Abolish  in  a  monarchy,"  said  he,  "  the  pre- 
rogatives of  the  lords,  the  clergy,  the  nobility, 
and  the  towns,  and  you  will  soon  have  either 
the  government  of  the  people  or  of  a  despot." 
"  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws  "  had  propounded 
this  periodically-recurring  problem  of  French 
government.  Citizens  who  were  loyal  to  the 
monarchy  and  yet  did  not  mean  to  sacrifice 
liberty  sought  a  compromise,  and  found  it  in 
"  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws."  They  appealed  to 
the  example  of  England,  and  formed  Montes- 
quieu's second  line  of  succession  in  revolu- 
tionary times. 

Great  minds  have  their  posterity ;  and  among 
their  descendants,  as  in  dynasties,  the  eldest- 


The  French  Revolution.  181 

born  do  not  always  gain  the  finest  fortunes  nor 
promote  the  glory  of  the  house.  There  are 
younger  brothers  founding  families  in  their 
turn,  whose  castles  eclipse  those  of  the  elder 
line ;  and  there  are  portionless  brothers  who 
go  off  to  the  colonies,  discover  mines,  make 
rich  marriages,  and  return  to  restore  the  abode 
of  their  ancestors.  Certain  children  disowned 
as  uncouth  or  scandalous  have  sometimes 
added  to  the  celebrity  of  a  name,  if  not  to  its 
honor.  Such  was  the  case  with  the  political 
progeny  of  Montesquieu.  The  elder  branch 
emigrated,  and  was  seen  sitting  at  princes' 
council-boards,  and  inspiring  Burke's  famous 
"  Reflections  on  the  Revolution  in  France." 
The  whole  picture  of  the  old  monarchy  and 
its  possible  reform,  traced  by  the  fiery  English 
orator,  is  drawn  from  "  The  Spirit  of  the 
Laws."  The  partisans  of  two  Chambers,  the 
monarchists,  as  they  are  called,  —  Necker,  in 
the  administration ;  Mounier,  Lally,  Bergasse, 
Clermont-Tonnerre,  and  Malouet,  in  the  As- 
sembly; and  Mallet  du  Pan  and  Rivarol  out- 
side, —  form  the  second  branch.  It  soon  gave 
way  before  the  storm;  and  though  it  did  not 
die,  it  required  years  to  recover  its  sap  and 
send  out  fresh  shoots. 

The  public  mind  turned  in  another   direc- 
tion.    It  turned  to  Sieyes,  that  is,  to  Montes- 


1 82  Montesquieu. 

quieu's  antipode.  "  Many  others,"  said  this 
famous  theorist,  —  perhaps  having  in  mind 
"  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws,"  -  —  "  have  made  it 
their  business  to  put  together  certain  servile 
notions  always  in  harmony  with  events.  Po- 
litical science  is  not  the  science  of  what  is,  but 
of  what  ought  to  be."  Yet  by  entering  upon 
paths  which  Montesquieu  would  have  shunned, 
the  Revolution  did  not  wholly  escape  his  guid- 
ance. It  was  at  this  time  that  his  indirect 
influence  was  exerted,  and  that  followers  ap- 
peared upon  the  stage  of  his  distracted  coun- 
try who  were  none  the  less  naturally  his  own 
because  rashly  dissenting  from  a  master  cer- 
tain to  disown  them  had  he  known  them  by 
their  works. 

This  defender  of  monarchy,  this  restorer  of 
the  ancient  political  rights  of  the  French,  was 
destined  to  become,  in  the  hands  of  such  dis- 
ciples, the  prophet  of  a  levelling  democracy 
and  of  a  government  like  the  Roman  Republic. 
This  strange  transformation  depended  less 
upon  Montesquieu's  essential  thought  than 
upon  the  form  he  gave  it  and  upon  the  ideas 
with  which  his  readers  interpreted  his  work. 
"  When  I  have  recalled  antiquity,  I  have 
sought  to  catch  its  spirit."  In  his  efforts  to 
resuscitate  the  ancients  he  animated  them  with 
his  own  spirit,  and  with  the  spirit  of  his  age. 


The  French  Revolution.  183 

To  tell  the  truth,  he  did  not  call  up  the  ghost 
of  an  antiquity  forever  dead;  he  brought  to 
light  rather  a  certain  form  of  thought  con- 
ceived by  his  own  age,  and  destined  for  the 
time  being  to  renovate  the  politics,  the  litera- 
ture, and  even  the  art  of  France.  Montesquieu 
is  not  so  much  the  restorer  of  antiquity  as  the 
herald  of  French  ideas  derived  from  the  Greek 
and  Latin,  —  an  order  of  ideas  that  prevailed 
from  Andre  Chenier  to  David,  from  Vergniaud 
to  Napoleon,  and  produced  Robespierre,  Saint- 
Just,  and  Charlotte  Corday.  The  explanation 
of  what  seems  on  his  part  the  result  of  a 
strange  divining  power,  or  of  an  influence  even 
more  wonderful,  is  found  in  the  similar  mental 
state  existing  in  him  and  among  his  revolu- 
tionary disciples,  in  spite  of  the  difference  in 
their  epochs  and  their  surroundings.  This  is  as 
much  a  problem  of  psychology  as  of  history. 

At  the  time  when  Montesquieu  formed  his 
theory  of  the  republic,  the  conception  was 
taking  root  in  men's  minds  and  the  word  "  re- 
public "  was  creeping  into  use  among  the  peo- 
ple. Classic  education  fostered  this  spirit; 
classic  literature  popularized  its  vocabulary. 
"Will  any  one  dare,"  wrote  d'Argenson  in 
1747,  "  to  propose  to  take  steps  toward  a  re- 
publican form  of  government?  I  see  no  apti- 
tude for  it  in  the  people :  the  nobles,  the  lords, 


184  Montesquieu. 

the  tribunals,  accustomed  to  servitude,  have 
never  turned  their  attention  to  it;  and  yet 
such  ideas  are  coming,  and  a  new  habit  quickly 
makes  its  way  among  the  French."  It  made 
its  way  noiselessly,  under  ground  that  had 
been  all  levelled  and  paved  in  Roman  style  by 
the  monarchy.  A  shock  occurred,  opening  an 
outlet  for  these  hidden  streams ;  they  burst 
forth  and  flowed  freely  in  the  bed  which 
seemed  their  natural  channel. 

The  same  tendency  that  had  prompted 
Montesquieu  to  describe  the  Roman  republic 
and  to  become  its  literary  citizen,  prompted 
the  French  revolutionists  to  restore  this  re- 
public in  France  and  to  become  its  actual 
citizens.  Their  hereditary  instincts,  guided  by 
Montesquieu's  writings,  suggested  to  them 
what  the  historic  imagination  had  disclosed 
to  him.  They  brought  to  their  task  the  same 
habits  of  mind,  when  impelled  to  organize 
democracy,  that  Montesquieu  had  brought  to 
the  composition  of  the  history  of  democracy. 
They  derived  their  conception  of  it  from  the 
same  sources;  they  understood  the  ancients 
as  Montesquieu  understood  them;  and  found 
them  described  in  his  works  as  suited  their 
desires  and  their  needs.  They  meant  to  realize 
what  Montesquieu  described.  He  analyzed  the 
laws  that  constitute  a  republic  and  give  it  life ; 


The  French  Revolution.  185 

they  enacted  these  laws,  and  in  their  opinion 
the  necessary  result  must  be  a  republic.  They 
took  into  account  none  of  the  conditions  that 
Montesquieu  had  laid  down  as  essential  to  his 
theory,  —  neither  climate,  nor  morals,  nor 
general  tendency.  Montesquieu  had  already 
blended  into  one  view  the  republics  of  all 
times;  but  they,  taking  this  ideal  legislation 
from  a  time  twenty  centuries  distant,  imported 
it  into  a  land  that  is  very  different,  and  into 
the  midst  of  a  civilization  of  a  quite  opposite 
character.  Their  method  was  contrary  to 
that  of  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws,"  but  in  har- 
mony with  the  spirit  of  the  age ;  and  it  was 
in  this  way  that  most  Frenchmen  understood 
Montesquieu. 

They  applied  to  him  the  interpretative  pro- 
cesses it  had  been  their  wont  to  apply  to  the 
classics :  taking  isolated  maxims  and  deducing 
from  them,  by  the  dialectic  method,  all  the 
consequences  that  logically  flow  from  them. 
Out  of  his  general  ideas  they  make  abstract 
and  universal  ideas,  —  that  is,  a  mould  for  their 
passions  to  fill.  Montesquieu  had,  as  it  were, 
made  himself  a  citizen  of  each  nation  in  suc- 
cession in  order  to  cure  each  people  of  its 
worst  prejudice,  —  self-ignorance.  His  inter- 
preters made  of  him  the  citizen  of  the  world 
and  the  cosmopolitan  legislator.  Far  from 


1 86  Montesquieu. 

seeking  in  his  works  a  cure  for  their  prejudices, 
they  sought  only  to  be  confirmed  in  them; 
and  transferring  his  work  from  the  relative  to 
the  absolute,  they  made  of  it  a  prophetic  code, 
of  laws  for  their  Utopia. 

The  whole  terrorist  revolution  has  been 
summed  up  in  a  sentence,  and  this  sentence 
was  directly  suggested  by  the  republican  max- 
ims of  "The  Spirit  of  the  Laws."  In  the 
words  of  Robespierre,  "  If  in  peace  the  strength 
of  a  popular  government  depends  on  virtue,  in 
a  revolution  it  depends  both  on  virtue  and  on 
terror;  for  without  virtue  terror  is  baneful,  and 
without  terror  virtue  is  impotent."  In  fact, 
terror  was  the  only  lever  strong  enough  so 
to  force  the  nature  of  things  as  to  constrain 
Frenchmen  to  transform  their  national  charac- 
ter and  morals,  oblige  them  to  go  back  from 
the  age  of  Louis  XV.  to  the  age  of  Lycurgus, 
and  compel  Paris  to  endure  what  Montesquieu 
himself  has  called  "  Sparta's  stupendous  bore- 
dom." All  this  required  "  those  terrible  mag- 
istracies "  mentioned  in  "  The  Spirit  of  the 
Laws,"  "  restoring  by  force  the  liberty  of  the 
state ;  "  it  required  the  law  of  the  public  safety, 
"  which  is  the  highest  law,"  and  that  doctrine 
invoked  by  sophists  for  all  tyrannies  that 
"  there  are  cases  when  liberty  must  for  the 
moment  be  veiled,  like  the  veiled  statues  of 


The  French  Revolution.  187 

the  gods ;  "  it  required  those  arrests  of  "  sus- 
pected citizens,  losing  their  liberty  for  a  time 
only  to  preserve  it  forever;  "  it  required  uni- 
form education,  equal  distribution  of  property, 
—  that  salutary  restriction  of  wealth  which  cor- 
rects the  natural  iniquity  of  fortune. 

Why  did  they  not  consider  those  chapters 
on  the  corruption  of  principles,  on  the  useless- 
ness  of  violence  against  established  manners, 
and  the  impotence  of  penalties  against  the 
nature  of  things?  That  some  few  perceived 
their  oversight  was  Montesquieu's  revenge,  — 
the  revenge  of  history  and  humanity.  The 
Girondins  understood  that  the  Republic  per- 
ished because  it  had  despised  his  teachings. 
While  Saint-Just  was  parodying  his  maxims 
and  caricaturing  his  pictures,  Camille  Desmou- 
lins  discovered  in  his  "  Considerations  on  the 
Romans  "  the  secret  of  republican  eloquence; 
and  it  was  through  Montesquieu  that  he  bor- 
rowed from  Tacitus  his  most  eloquent  invec- 
tives against  tyranny.  The  persecuted  and 
decimated  nobles  recovered  before  the  guillo- 
tine their  proud  sense  of  honor,  that  monarchi- 
cal virtue  which  Montesquieu  had  reproached 
them  with  having  renounced  before  the  crown. 
Everything  confirmed  his  dark  forebodings  as 
to  the  decline  of  political  morals  in  France ; 
everything  confirmed  the  opinion  he  had 


1 88  Montesquieu. 

thrown  out  in  passing  as  to  "  the  speculative 
sciences  that  restore  men  to  savagery,"  and  as 
to  the  terrible  consequences  of  the  despotism 
which  should  be  established  amid  the  ruins  of 
monarchy:  "In  this  fair  quarter  of  the  globe 
human  nature  would  suffer,  at  least  for  a  time, 
the  insults  now  heaped  upon  it  in  the  three 
others." 

When  men  tried  to  return  to  order,  modera- 
tion, liberty,  they  returned  to  him.  There 
certainly  was  much  more  of  his  spirit  in  the 
constitution  of  the  year  III.  than  in  that  of 
1791.  Some  of  his  disciples  were  called  to  sit 
in  the  assemblies:  Portalis,  Barbe-Marbois, 
Mathieu-Dumas,  Simeon,  Camille  Jordan  ;  and 
in  the  Directory  itself  was  a  diplomatist  brought 
up  on  the  counsels  of  Vergennes,  the  prudent 
Barthelemy.  Montesquieu's  works  were  re- 
printed. Pastoret  in  the  Council  of  the  Five 
Hundred,  and  Goupil  de  Prefeln  in  the  Coun- 
cil of  the  Ancients  proposed  to  vote  him  the 
honors  of  the  Pantheon.  But  the  violent  party 
did  not  give  them  time,  and  the  political  crisis 
of  Fructidor  again  exiled  "The  Spirit  of  the 
Laws "  from  the  Republic. 

The  constitution  of  the  year  VIII.  had  noth- 
ing in  common  with  liberty  as  Montesquieu 
conceived  it.  If  we  may  believe  Stendhal, 
Bonaparte  had  done  little  more  than  turn  the 


The  French  Revolution.  1 89 

leaves  of  this  great  man's  writings ;  but  he 
held  Montesquieu's  disciples  in  high  esteem. 
Though  he  forbade  them  to  talk  politics,  he 
intrusted  to  their  care  the  courts,  the  civil 
government,  and  civil  legislation.  The  famous 
council  of  state  that  drew  up  the  Civil  Code, 
and  whose  most  industrious  member  was  Por- 
talis,  was  inspired  in  substance  as  well  as  in 
form  by  the  precepts  of  Montesquieu. 

But  the  emperor's  policy  violated  all  Mon- 
tesquieu's maxims,  while  at  the  same  time  it 
justified  all  his  conclusions.  A  more  complete 
demonstration  of  the  existence  of  historical 
laws  could  not  be  found,  nor  a  more  decisive 
proof  of  those  Montesquieu  had  inferred.  He 
had  shown  how  a  country  during  revolution 
becomes  more  formidable  abroad  than  it  can 
ever  be  at  other  times ;  how,  in  a  nation  where 
monarchical  customs  are  concealed  under  re- 
publican laws,  war  begun  as  in  republics  must 
end  as  in  monarchies.  "  As  soon  as  the  army 
depends  only  on  the  legislative  assembly,  the 
government  will  become  military."  At  a  time 
when  there  were  so  few  good  captains  in 
France  that  the  king  had  to  seek  out  Marshal 
Saxe,  a  great  mercenary  leader,  to  bear  his 
sword,  Montesquieu  penned  this  remarkable 
phrase  :  "  France  will  be  ruined  by  warriors." 
It  was  Denmark  that  had  suggested  the  fol- 


1 90  Montesquieu. 

lowing  thought,  so  exactly  applicable  to  the 
France  of  1804:  "No  authority  is  more  ab- 
solute than  that  of  the  prince  who  succeeds 
a  republic ;  for  he  finds  himself  in  possession 
of  all  the  power  of  a  people  that  had  been 
unable  to  restrain  its  own  power." 

The  chapter  on  the  Roman  policy  in  regard 
to  conquest  contains,  in  substance,  Bonaparte's 
whole  policy.  It  is  just  because  the  First 
Consul  was  wholly  Roman  and  wholly  classic 
in  his  genius  that  he  so  well  understood  the 
Frenchmen  of  his  time,  and  so  easily  per- 
suaded them  that  in  obeying  his  wishes  they 
were  still  exercising  their  sovereign  power. 
There  certainly  were  reminiscences  of  Alex- 
ander, and  probably  of  Montesquieu's  Alex- 
ander, in  the  wondrous  dreams  cherished  by 
the  commander-in-chief  at  Ancona,  impelling 
him  toward  Greece  and  the  Orient.  We  rec- 
ognize more  than  one  feature  of  Charlemagne 
as  portrayed  in  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws  "  in 
the  colossal  vision  of  this  emperor  formed  by 
Napoleon  and  constantly  haunting  his  imagi- 
nation after  the  Consulate. 

How  can  we  help  discerning  the  French 
empire  in  those  pictures  of  Rome  which,  if 
composed  afterward,  would  pass  for  allusion 
or  satire,  and  which,  composed  as  they  were 
half  a  century  before,  seem  to  be  fragments  of 


The  French  Revolution.  191 

prophecy?  We  see  it  in  that  overweening  pas- 
sion of  a  whole  people  for  glory ;  in  that  need 
of  dazzling  men  in  order  to  subject  them ;  in 
that  "war  for  reputation "  which  the  boldest 
and  most  ambitious  leader  makes  upon  his 
rivals ;  in  that  art  of  attacking  these  rivals 
"  with  their  own  weapons, —  that  is,  by  gaining 
victories  over  the  enemies  of  the  Republic ;  "  in 
that  picture  of  imperial  Rome,  properly  speak- 
ing neither  empire  nor  republic,  but  the  head 
of  a  body  formed  by  all  the  nations  of  Europe  ; 
in  the  association  of  these  nations,  which  have 
nothing  in  common  but  their  common  alle- 
giance, and  which  bind  themselves  by  the  very 
bonds  of  their  conquest;  in  the  kings  that 
Rome  had  everywhere  planted  only  to  make 
them  slaves,  who  finally  turn  against  her 
the  resources  she  has  dealt  out  to  them ;  in 
the  impossibility  of  sustaining  "  to  the  very 
last  an  enterprise  that  could  not  fail  in  one 
country  without  failing  in  all  the  rest,  nor 
fail  for  one  moment  without  failing  forever;  " 
finally,  in  the  destruction  of  Rome  by  the  com- 
bined attack  of  all  the  nations  investing  and 
assailing  it  on  all  sides,  —  that  fatal  result  of 
the  Roman  policy  of  which  Montesquieu  fore- 
warns any  one  who  shall  enter  again  upon  the 
same  career.  "  If  a  ruler  should  now  make 
such  ravages  in  Europe,  the  nations,  driven 


192  Montesquieu. 

toward  the  north,  would  stand  at  bay  at  the 
ends  of  the  world  until  the  moment  when  they 
could  deluge  Europe  and  conquer  it  a  third 
time."  Let  us  conclude  with  the  words  of 
"  Eucrates,"  that  is,  of  Montesquieu :  "  To 
give  one  man  supremacy  over  mankind  costs 
all  other  men  too  dear." 


CHAPTER  X. 

MONTESQUIEU'S   FOLLOWERS   IN   POLITICS  AND 
HISTORY. MONTESQUIEU  AND  CRITICISM. 

THE  restoration  of  royalty  in  France  in 
1814  restored  to  politics  that  second 
line  of  Montesquieu's  followers  which  the  Rev- 
olution had  proscribed  and  which  the  Empire 
had  absorbed  in  the  senate  or  in  the  council. 
They  regained  power  under  conditions  per- 
mitting them  to  make  a  thorough  test  of  the 
constitutional  monarchy  that  had  broken  down 
in  1791. 

Chateaubriand  at  first  aspired  to  compose  a 
new  "  Spirit  of  the  Laws "  in  his  "  Essay  on 
Revolutions ;  "  but  he  accomplished  little  more 
than  to  transpose  Montesquieu's  formulas  and 
exaggerate  to  a  ridiculous  degree  his  manner- 
isms. He  suitably  praised  and  admired  Mon- 
tesquieu in  "The  Genius  of  Christianity;"  and 
developed  many  select  maxims  in  his  "  Mon- 
archy as  Based  on  the  Charter."  Benjamin 
Constant,  in  his  "  Reflections  on  the  Constitu- 
tion," was  inspired  by  the  chapters  on  political 
13 


1 94  Montesquieu. 

liberty  in  "The  Spirit  of  the  Laws."  The 
Doctrinaires  tried  to  correct  Montesquieu's 
classification  of  governments  by  applying 
to  democracy  and  monarchy  the  following 
thought  from  Pascal :  "  The  many,  when  not 
subject  to  one,  produce  anarchy;  the  one, 
when  independent  of  the  many,  produces 
tyranny."  Louis  XVIII.  had  read  "  The  Spirit 
of  the  Laws  "  merely  as  a  man  of  intelligence, 
when  he  was  but  a  claimant  to  the  crown; 
once  upon  the  throne  he  interpreted  it  with 
royal  prudence.  The  ministries  of  the  Duke 
de  Richelieu  and  of  M.  de  Martignac,  the  fine 
episode  of  Count  de  Serre's  discussion  of  the 
laws  controlling  printing,  the  speeches  of  the 
Duke  de  Broglie  and  of  Royer-Collard  against 
the  disastrous  law  of  sacrilege,  all  manifest 
Montesquieu's  spirit  in  a  government  which 
was  no  doubt  at  that  time  just  what  he  would 
have  desired. 

Talleyrand  carried  this  same  spirit  into  diplo- 
macy. From  his  youth  he  had  been  imbued 
with  it.  The  paper  he  wrote  at  London,  in 
November,  1792,  on  the  objections  to  a  policy 
of  conquest,  proves  this  statement.  This  spirit 
is  again  found,  expressed  with  a  loftiness  of 
view  and  a  skill  in  composition  perhaps  never 
equalled  in  a  diplomatic  document,  in  the  "  In- 
structions" which  Talleyrand  caused  to  be 


His  Followers.  195 

given  to  himself  for  the  Congress  of  Vienna  in 
1814,  and  which  were  drawn  up  by  La  Besnar- 
diere  under  his  direction.  The  conception  of 
Europe  and  the  definition  of  international  law 
are  borrowed  from  Montesquieu.  The  picture 
of  Prussia  is  one  of  the  most  brilliant  pieces  of 
this  literary  school.  In  fact,  we  seem  to  rec- 
ognize a  quotation  in  the  passage  beginning : 
"  Poland  restored  to  independence  would  be 
inevitably  restored  to  anarchy."  The  elucida- 
tion of  this  is  like  an  unpublished  chapter  of 
"  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws."  We  find  the  very 
essence  of  that  work  in  this  maxim  summing 
up  the  whole  drift  of  the  "  Instructions " : 
"  France  is  so  happily  situated  as  not  to  find 
it  desirable  that  justice  and  advantage  should 
part  company,  and  not  to  seek  its  private  ad- 
vantage apart  from  the  justice  which  is  the 
advantage  of  all." 

Not  only  Montesquieu's  thought,  but  his 
manner  and  even  his  comparisons,  revive 
spontaneously  under  the  pen  of  Talleyrand. 
The  latter  in  one  of  his  Vienna  notes  avails 
himself  of  a  very  beautiful  but  rather  bold 
figure  from  the  "  Considerations,"  amending 
it  as  he  adopts  it.  "  France,"  says  Talley- 
rand, "  had  no  ambitious  aim  nor  personal 
interest  to  bring  to  the  Congress.  Restored 
to  her  ancient  boundaries,  she  no  longer 


1 96  Montesquieu. 

dreamed  of  extending  them,  —  like  the  sea, 
which  breaks  over  its  banks  only  when  it  has 
been  lashed  by  tempests."  Montesquieu  had 
written  less  aptly  when  he  made  the  following 
reflection :  "  It  is  wonderful  that  after  so  many 
wars  the  Romans  should  have  lost  only  what 
they  had  voluntarily  abandoned,  —  like  the  sea, 
which  never  contracts  its  limits  except  by  its 
own  proper  ebb." 

This  allusion  to  the  "  Considerations  "  leads 
us  to  history,  in  which  Montesquieu's  following 
is  quite  as  large  as  in  politics.  In  history  he 
has  taught  the  concatenation  of  facts,  the  rela- 
tion of  causes,  the  ramification  of  events,  the 
explanation  of  the  laws  by  history,  and  the 
interpretation  of  history  by  manners  and  cus- 
toms. From  him  evidently  proceed  the  whole 
school  of  constitutional  history  and  that  of  the 
modern  philosophy  of  history.  Guizot  is  not 
in  the  direct  line  of  descent  from  Montesquieu  ; 
but  though  he  is  the  most  independent  and 
original  of  disciples,  he  is  still  a  disciple  of  the 
author  of  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws."  He  was 
Montesquieu's  successor  during  the  first  half 
of  this  century,  in  the  character  of  initiator  and 
founder  of  the  science  of  history.  "  Guizot, 
as  the  historian  of  our  ancient  institutions, 
began,"  says  Augustin  Thierry,  "  the  scien- 
tific era,  properly  so  called ;  before  him,  Mon- 


His  Followers.  197 

tesquieu  alone  excepted,  there  had  been  only 
systems."  Guizot  applied  to  history  the  idea 
of  progress  of  which  Montesquieu  had  a  pre- 
sentiment, but  no  clear  conception;  Turgot 
and  Condorcet  set  it  forth  clearly;  Guizot 
made  of  it  the  very  spirit  of  civilization  which 
he  defines  as  "  the  progress  of  society  and 
humanity  toward  perfection."  This  idea  of 
progress  formed  the  very  woof  of  history,  as 
he  unfolded  it  with  admirable  fulness  in  his 
lectures  in  1828. 

Madame  de  Stael  had  been  among  the  first 
to  adopt  this  conception  of  perfectibility.  She 
had  combined  it,  in  her  "  Influence  of  the 
Passions,"  with  many  thoughts  derived  from 
"  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws."  She  again  took  up 
this  idea  in  her  book  on  "  Germany,"  and  set 
it  forth  with  a  hearty  warmth  and  a  kind  of  re- 
ligious enthusiasm  wanting  in  Montesquieu's 
less  sensitive  and  more  rational  humanity. 
Her  latest  and  strongest  work,  "  Considera- 
tions on  the  French  Revolution,"  begins  with 
a  maxim  which,  according  to  "The  Spirit  of 
the  Laws,"  lies  at  the  basis  of  French  history : 
"  Liberty  is  ancient,  and  despotism  modern." 
By  writing  the  history  of  liberty  from  1789  to 
1814,  Madame  de  Stael  really  composed  the 
history  of  Montesquieu's  ideas  through  the 
period  of  the  Revolution  and  the  Empire. 


198  Montesquieu. 

The  monarchical  branch  of  Montesquieu's 
sons  attained  its  highest  fortune  under  the 
Restoration.  They  had  founded  that  govern- 
ment; they  only  would  have  been  capable  of 
maintaining  it  and  keeping  it  constantly  true 
to  its  principle.  In  this  attempt  they  failed. 
These  moderate  politicians  did  not  succeed  in 
making  the  theocrats  of  the  restored  monarchy 
understand  that  the  abstract  word  "legitimacy" 
means  nothing  in  itself;  that  the  right  they 
claim  to  derive  from  it  is  merely  a  prescrip- 
tive right,  which,  in  order  not  to  be  annulled, 
must  be  continually  renewed ;  that  new  gov- 
ernments become  legitimate,  according  to  Bos- 
suet,  and  old  ones  sustain  themselves,  accord- 
ing to  Montesquieu,  "  only  through  the  lapse 
of  time  and  by  the  consent  of  the  people." 
"  The  government  which  is  most  conformable 
to  nature,"  Montesquieu  had  said,  "  is  the  one 
whose  peculiar  constitution  answers  best  to 
the  disposition  of  the  people  for  whom  it  is 
established." 

Montesquieu's  royalist  disciples  fell  from 
power  with  the  fall  of  the  constitutional  mon- 
archy. France  once  more  had  to  choose  be- 
tween "  a  democratic  and  a  despotic  govern- 
ment." Democracy  was  here  developed  on 
old  monarchical  ground,  in  a  nation  of  more 
than  thirty  million  souls,  a  nation  civilized  to 


His  Followers.  199 

the  point  of  refinement,  conceiving  of  no  so- 
cial progress  without  progress  in  wealth,  —  a 
commercial,  industrial  people,  loving  luxury 
and  living  in  it.  Such  a  democracy  put  to 
rout  all  the  notions  of  "  The  Spirit  of  the 
Laws."  Montesquieu,  after  being  his  coun- 
try's beneficent  adviser  upon  so  many  grave 
occasions,  would  have  failed  her  at  this  junc- 
ture if  his  genius  had  not  raised  up  a  man  to 
continue  his  work  and  to  propagate  his  ideas 
in  modern  France.  This  man  was  Tocqueville. 
He  represents  the  last  branch  of  Montesquieu's 
intellectual  descendants.  This  branch  of  the 
family  maintained  throughout  the  Revolution, 
the  Empire,  and  the  Restoration  an  attitude 
of  opposition  sometimes  eager,  sometimes  re- 
served, always  uneasy,  and  often  melancholy. 
Attached  heart  and  soul  to  liberty,  loving  it 
for  its  own  sake,  desiring  it  for  their  country, 
and  considering  the  advent  of  democracy  as 
henceforward  inevitable,  these  far-sighted  pa- 
triots sought  to  harmonize  this  revolution  with 
French  traditions.  They  sought  from  the 
United  States  instruction  analogous  to  that 
which  their  elders  had  sought  from  England 
when  the  question  was  how  to  harmonize 
monarchy  with  the  national  liberties. 

Tocqueville's  mind,  like  Montesquieu's,  was 
fitted  for  generalization  and  the  assertion  of 


2OO  Montesquieu. 

dogmas.  He  was  at  heart  less  of  a  legislator, 
and  above  all  less  of  a  politician,  than  he  was 
a  moralist.  As  to  method  and  division  in 
the  treatment  of  his  subject,  his  procedure  is 
wholly  based  upon  Montesquieu's.  He,  too, 
has  his  great  historical  study,  "The  Old  Re- 
gime and  the  Revolution,"  corresponding  to 
the  "  Considerations  on  the  Romans ;  "  and  he 
has  his  "  Democracy  in  America,"  correspond- 
ing to  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws."  During  the 
second  half  of  the  century  he  gave  to  political 
and  historical  studies  an  impulse  less  signal 
doubtless,  and  less  acknowledged,  but  as  effica- 
cious and  as  fruitful  in  results,  as  that  given 
during  the  first  half  by  Guizot  Through 
him  Montesquieu  is  connected  with  contem- 
porary France,  where  he  still  exerts  an  influ- 
ence more  widespread  than  we  are  inclined 
to  believe.  We  have  to  thank  his  wholly  his- 
torical and  experimental  spirit,  gradually  per- 
vading our  institutions  and  our  habits,  that 
the  rational  mechanism  of  Sieyes  has  been 
abandoned  in  favor  of  the  applied  mechan- 
ism of  practical  men;  that  the  Republic  has 
become  parliamentary,  and  has  been  estab- 
lished in  France  as  the  result  of  a  constitu- 
tion the  most  summary  in  its  text,  the  most 
customary  in  its  application,  the  most  nat- 
ural outcome  of  our  manners  and  of  the 


His  Followers.  201 

force  of  circumstances,  that  France  has  yet 
possessed. 

Montesquieu's  influence  on  Europe  is  com- 
mensurate with  his  influence  on  France.  From 
the  end  of  the  last  century  it  is  everywhere 
apparent.  It  is  the  very  genius  of  "  The  Spirit 
of  the  Laws "  that  seems  to  inspire,  in  the 
work  of  regenerating  his  adoptive  country,  the 
greatest  statesman  that  Germany  has  produced. 
Never  was  the  ruin  of  a  government  by  the 
corruption  of  its  principles  more  clearly  ex- 
emplified than  by  the  downfall  of  the  Prussian 
monarchy  after  Jena ;  never  was  the  art  of  re- 
trieving a  nation's  losses  and  restoring  a  mon- 
archy by  going  back  to  first  principles  and  by 
renewing  these  principles  where  they  had  been 
altered,  practised  with  more  depth  and  insight 
than  by  Baron  von  Stein. 

Constitutional  government  passed  over  from 
England  to  the  continent,  conveyed  by  Mon- 
tesquieu's work,  and  was  there  propagated  by 
French  example.  The  two  chapters  of  "  The 
Spirit  of  the  Laws  "  on  England  and  her  con- 
stitution have  thus  become  a  distinct  work, 
and  have  marked  one  stage  in  the  history  of 
human  society.  It  is  often  less  by  their  direct 
rays  than  by  their  diffused  light  and  by  the 
reflection  of  their  satellites  that  great  thinkers 
enlighten  men. 


202  Montesquieu. 

Much  has  been  written  about  Montesquieu.1 
It  would  seem  difficult  to  be  more  liberal  in 
defence  than  was  Villemain  in  his  "  Eulogy  " 
and  his  "  Lectures  on  Literature  in  the  Eigh- 
teenth Century ;  "  or  to  be  narrower  and  more 
trenchant  in  contradiction  than  Destutt  de 
Tracy  in  his  "  Commentary  on  the  Spirit  of 
the  Laws."  Tracy's  criticism,  wholly  specula- 
tive and  a  priori,  is  not  such  as  we  look  for 
to-day.  A  comparison  between  a  great  au- 
thor's writings  and  the  theory  which  the  critic 
may  have  constructed  for  his  private  guidance 
is  of  little  value  to  us.  This  procedure  implies 
on  the  critic's  part  a  definitive  science  such  as 
no  one  has  ever  possessed,  and  on  the  reader's 
part  a  boundless  deference  such  as  is  cherished 
only  by  dunces.  We  ask  of  criticism  to  make 
us  acquainted  with  men,  to  explain  the  origin 

1  A  bibliography  of  Montesquieu's  original  editions  and  of 
the  works  written  concerning  him  may  be  found  by  the  reader 
at  the  end  of  M.  Vian's  "  History  of  Montesquieu."  I  have 
made  use  of  this  book,  keeping  in  view  the  strictures  that 
have  been  made  upon  it  by  M.  Brunetiere  and  M.  Tamizey  de 
Larroque,  as  well  as  the  researches  of  M.  Tourneux.  I  have 
placed  under  contribution  the  inexhaustible  stores  of  Sainte- 
Beuve's  "  Mondays  "  and  "  Port-Royal."  I  have  found  most 
useful  information  and  guidance  in  the  "  Ancient  City,"  by 
M.  Fustel  de  Coulanges,  and  in  "  Civilization  and  its  Laws," 
by  M.  Funck-Brentano,  particularly  in  Book  I.  of  this  work, 
entitled  "  Manners  and  Laws :  Political  Customs  in  Democ- 
racies and  in  Monarchies." 


Criticism.  203 

and  real  meaning  of  their  works.  M.  Paul 
Janet  in  his  "  History  of  Political  Science," 
M.  Laboulaye  in  the  "  Notices "  of  his  great 
edition  of  Montesquieu,  M.  Taine  in  a  few  mas- 
terly pages  of  his  "  Old  Regime,"  have  shown 
how  this  fruitful  method  of  criticism  should 
be  applied  to  the  author  of  "  The  Spirit  of  the 
Laws."  All  three  admire  his  genius,  praise 
his  method,  and  in  general  agree  with  his 
main  conclusions. 

Sainte-Beuve  only  half  agrees,  and  this  with 
endless  restrictions.  We  find  in  his  writings 
the  gravest  objections  that  have  been  made  to 
Montesquieu,  under  their  most  winning  guise. 
Besides  his  formal  notice  of  Montesquieu, 
Sainte-Beuve  has  referred  to  him  again  and 
again,  approaching  the  subject  from  all  sides 
and  in  all  its  bearings  in  his  "  Mondays  "  and 
his  "  Port-Royal."  He  is  fascinated  by  the 
man,  charmed  by  the  writer,  disquieted  by  the 
work,  provoked  by  the  historian,  bewildered 
by  the  legislator. 

He  accuses  the  legislator  of  having  too  high 
an  estimate  of  average  humanity,  of  sacrificing 
too  much  to  social  distinctions  and  to  regard 
for  public  opinion,  of  not  taking  sufficient  ac- 
count of  the  original  depravity  always  latent  in 
man,  of  concealing  —  more  than  he  ought  — 
beneath  the  drapery  of  society  the  human  gar- 


204  Montesquieu. 

ment  of  rags.  Sainte-Beuve  does  not  see  that, 
in  the  great  sanitary  science  of  politics,  optim- 
ism is  the  essential  condition,  the  soul  of  the 
whole  enterprise.  How  shall  we  govern  man 
if  we  believe  him  ungovernable  ;  how  improve 
him  if  we  believe  him  incapable  of  improve- 
ment ;  how  stimulate  him  to  effort,  and  by  this 
very  effort  restore  activity  to  his  muscles,  if  we 
believe  him  enervated  and  paralyzed  forever? 
Supposing  him  really  sick,  how  cure  him  or 
subject  him  to  treatment  if  we  begin  by  prov- 
ing that  his  vitality  is  exhausted,  that  his  dis- 
ease is  incurable,  and  that  vitality  and  cure 
are,  after  all,  mere  figures  of  speech ;  that  we 
do  not  know  exactly  what  either  health  or  dis- 
ease is;  that  in  the  last  analysis  all  science 
consists  in  the  description  of  a  healthy  man, 
and  all  practice  in  saying  to  suffering  human- 
ity, "  Do  try  to  feel  better  "  ? 

Sainte-Beuve  thought  that  Montesquieu,  as 
a  historian,  neglected  too  much  men's  incon- 
sistencies and  fortune's  caprices.  In  his  opin- 
ion Montesquieu  makes  matters  too  simple  and 
arranges  everything  too  methodically,  takes  no 
account  of  accidents,  sets  apart  certain  episodes 
in  the  struggle  to  give  them  a  show  of  reason 
which  they  never  had ;  he  considers  only  those 
operations  that  have  produced  results,  and 
leaves  out  all  those  that  have  broken  down 


Criticism.  205 

under  way;  amid  the  thousand  ways  in  which 
an  event  might  have  turned  out,  he  chooses 
only  the  way  in  which  it  did  turn  out;  he 
suppresses  the  unforeseen;  he  disregards  "the 
truth  concealed  in  the  intrigue  and  masquerade 
of  human  life ; "  and  though  he  professes  to  be 
blazing  out  highways,  really  only  bends  his 
way — his  great  royal  highway  —  "  in  quest  of 
illustrious  men."  Leaving  out  of  view  Provi- 
dence, which  reveals  none  of  its  secrets,  there 
is  nothing  in  this  disorderly  world,  according 
to  the  author  of  "  Port-Royal,"  but  strength, 
skill,  and  luck.  Pascal  had  seen  the  Fronde, 
reflected  on  the  Revolution  in  England,  and 
sought  the  heart  of  things ;  and  he  saw  every- 
where only  the  play  of  chance,  —  Cleopatra's 
nose,  Cromwell's  grain  of  sand.  Such  was  the 
inevitable  conclusion  reached  by  this  great 
thinker.  This  applies  to  the  men  who  claim 
to  be  leaders ;  as  for  those  who  are  supposed 
to  be  led,  those  obscure  masses  accomplish 
great  things,  but  are  not  conscious  of  it 
Great  revolutions  and  great  victories  are  the 
work  of  unconscious  actors ;  all  depends  on 
the  motions  of  unknown  blind  men  as  they 
grope  about  in  their  darkness. 

Such  are  the  objections.  Mystic  and  Epi- 
curean, devotee  and  doubter,  Pascal  and  Mon- 
taigne, Hobbes  and  La  Rochefoucauld,  meet 


206  Montesquieu. 

on  this  ground,  and  though  they  do  not  all 
agree,  here  make  common  cause.  Frederick 
liked  to  teach  such  Pyrrhonism,  and  had  mo- 
tives for  his  left-handed  support  of  the  ironical 
doctrine  that  in  this  world  "  success  clothes  it- 
self with  right  as  best  it  can."  "  Ordinarily," 
said  he,  "  we  get  a  superstitious  notion  of  great 
revolutions  in  government;  but  when  we  can 
go  behind  the  scenes,  we  see  that  the  most 
magical  effects  are  produced  by  the  move- 
ments of  common  springs  and  worthless  ras- 
cals." People  are  fond  of  cherishing  the  vain 
thought  that  they  are  admitted  behind  the 
scenes;  how  many  chroniclers  have  ascribed 
great  effects  to  trifling  causes,  solely  to  be 
able  to  boast  that  they  had  perceived  them ! 
Voltaire  put  faith  in  Frederick's  sally  and 
served  Frederick's  designs,  thinking  himself, 
as  Frederick  persuaded  him,  merely  in  the 
service  of  chance.  Of  this  service  the  philoso- 
pher was  proud,  and  the  king  treated  him,  as 
such  famous  leaders  of  men  are  wont  to  treat 
their  dupes,  as  a  political  cat's-paw.  Sifted 
by  the  principle  he  stated,  what  would  remain 
of  Frederick  himself,  of  his  campaigns  and 
his  policy?  Montesquieu  confutes  him  with 
a  line,  and  restores  him  to  himself  and  to  his 
proper  glory.  "  Fortune  never  exhibits  this 
kind  of  constancy." 


Criticism.  207 

It  is  true  of  the  phenomena  of  history,  as  of 
those  of  physical  nature,  that  chance  alone 
cannot  cause  them  to  be  repeated  in  regular 
succession  under  identical  conditions.  This 
succession  has  its  laws:  facts  are  not  merely 
thrown  together  or  isolated;  they  are  inter- 
dependent and  connected.  Only  the  form  of 
the  event  depends  on  chance.  The  waters  of  a 
river  issue  from  the  mountain  and  flow  toward 
the  sea:  a  stone  may  turn  them  aside,  but 
does  not  drive  them  back  to  their  source;  it 
does  not  change  the  general  course  imposed 
upon  them  by  all  the  undulations  of  the  earth's 
surface.  Thus  a'bove  individual  action  —  the 
action  of  the  isolated  human  cause  —  there  is 
social  action,  the  living  resultant  of  individual 
causes  taken  together.  This  is  "  the  general 
tendency  involving  all  special  accidents."  By 
virtue  of  this  principle,  if  Caesar  had  not  come 
some  other  man  would  have  taken  Caesar's 
place.  Montesquieu  never  made  it  clearer 
than  by  this  instance :  "  So  impossible  was  it 
that  the  Republic  should  be  again  set  up,  that 
an  unheard-of  thing  occurred,  —  a  time  came 
when  neither  tyrant  nor  liberty  longer  existed, 
for  the  causes  which  had  destroyed  liberty 
subsisted  still." 

The  historian  determines  and  unfolds  these 
causes.  He  follows,  as  is  said,  the  king's  high- 


208  Montesquieu. 

ways  of  history,  but  these  are  also  the  nation's 
and  the  people's  highways.  The  historian 
traces  upon  his  map  the  path  humanity  has 
trod.  It  is  the  broad  and  direct  road  of  his- 
tory. Why  leave  it  to  beat  about  the  bush? 
Why  wander  over  all  the  hill-slopes  and  vainly 
strive  to  track  all  stragglers  ?  The  first-comers, 
as  they  crossed  the  mountains  on  foot,  made 
paths  by  the  torrents'  courses ;  the  roads  fol- 
lowed these  paths ;  the  highways  enlarged  the 
roads;  and  the  railroad  engineers,  in  their 
turn,  have  followed  the  lines  of  the  highways. 

Between  Montaigne,  that  brimming  flood  of 
human  irony,  and  Pascal,  that  abyss  of  reason 
ingulfed  by  its  own  profundity,  there  is  a  sci- 
entific middle  ground  in  reflection  and  com- 
mon sense,  and  this  ground  is  occupied  by 
Montesquieu.  He  is  pre-eminently  the  social 
and  political  man  of  honor,  thinking  nothing 
human  alien  to  him,  seeking  self-knowledge 
that  he  may  know  others  better,  and  making 
known  to  men  their  condition,  that  he  may 
teach  them  to  render  it  more  endurable.  His 
works  abide  because  they  are  historical  and 
rest  upon  observation  of  Nature.  That  his  gen- 
eral views  are  correct  is  the  essential  thing; 
his  errors  in  detail  are  of  little  importance. 
Villemain  has  well  said :  "  In  a  work  of  this 
kind  such  errors  are  of  no  more  account  than 


Criticism.  209 

fractions  in  a  large  reckoning."  Montesquieu 
left  something  better  th^n  precepts,  —  he  left 
a  method  making  it  possible  to  develop  his 
thought,  and  to  apply  it  to  cases  that  he 
could  never  have  foreseen.  He  produced  a 
deep  and  lasting  effect  upon  his  own  time,  and 
is  still  full  of  instruction  for  ours.  His  name  is 
associated  with  many  of  the  best  reforms  that 
have  been  brought  about  within  the  past  cen- 
tury. He  is  representative  of  the  French  na- 
tional mind  in  all  that  is  exactest,  broadest, 
wisest,  and  most  liberal. 


INDEX. 


ACADEMY,  The  French,  Montesquieu 
elected  a  member  and  thrown  out 
by  the  king,  54;  final  election  and 
installation,  55. 

America.  See  Democracy,  United 
States. 

Americans,  their  debt  to  Montesquieu, 
173.  (See  United  States.) 

Anthropology,  Montesquieu's  inferior- 
ity to  Buffon  in  knowledge  of,  85, 
86. 

Antiquity,  Montesquieu's  reverence 
for,  27 ;  powerful  influence  of  his 
conception  upon  the  French  Revo- 
lution, 182-185. 

Antonines,  Montesquieu's  admiration 
for,  78. 

"Arabian  Nights,"  Montesquieu's 
failure  to  utilize,  34. 

Archaeology,  Montesquieu's  ignorance 
of,  69. 

Aristocracy,  conditions  and  dangers 
of,  1 15, 1 16 ;  corruption  of,  in  France 
under  the  Old  Regime,  175-177. 


BBCCARIA,  his  indebtedness  to  Mon- 
tesquieu, 170. 

Bielfeld,  his  indebtedness  to  Montes- 
quieu, 170. 

Blackstone,  a  disciple  of  Montesquieu, 
172. 

Bonaparte,  Napoleon,  his  esteem  for 
Montesquieu's  writings,   188,    189 ; 
violates  Montesquieu's  maxims  and 
justifies  his  conclusions,   189,    190 
his  imperial  policy  anticipated  by 


Montesquieu's  description  of  the 
Roman  policy  of  conquest,  190-192. 

Bossuet,  his  study  of  Rome,  64-66 ; 
his  conception  contrasted  with  Mon- 
tesquieu's, 66;  his  "Discourse  on 
Universal  History,"  83. 

Boulainvilliers,  his  "  Historical  Me- 
moirs on  the  Ancient  Governments 
of  France,"  156;  Montesquieu's 
criticism  of,  157. 

Boutmy,  on  origin  of  English  consti- 
tution, 125. 

Brunetiere,  his  strictures  on  Vian's 
"  History  of  Montesquieu,"  202. 

Brutus,  Montesquieu's  praise  of,  76. 

Buffon,  his  explanation  of  the  origin 
of  the  social  union,  quoted,  85 ;  his 
unjust  criticism  of  Montesquieu,  97 ; 
his  lofty  vein  of  religious  subterfuge, 

100. 

Burke,  Edmund,  inspired  by  Montes- 
quieu, 181. 

Byzantine  Empire,  Montesquieu's 
chapters  on,  79. 

CAESAR,  Montesquieu's    estimate  of, 

75.  76- 

Catherine  the  Great,  her  use  of  Mon- 
tesquieu's "  Spirit  of  the  Laws," 
170,  171. 

Chardin,  debt  of  the  "  Persian  Let. 
ters  "  to,  34. 

Chateaubriand,  his  licentiousness,  22  ; 
his  imitation  and  praise  of  Montes- 
quieu, 193. 

Chenier,  Andre,  compared  with  Mon- 
tesquieu, 53. 


212 


Index. 


Chesterfield,  Lord,  friendship  with 
Montesquieu,  59;  takes  Montes- 
quieu to  England,  60. 

Christianity,  Montesquieu  fails  to  see 
its  real  importance  in  Roman  his- 
tory, 78 ;  his  evasive  and  false  atti- 
tude in  "The  Spirit  of  the  Laws," 
99-101.  (See  Religion.) 

Church,  its  relation  to  the  state,  135- 
137;  its  attack,  through  the  Jesuits 
and  the  Jansenists,  upon  "  The 
Spirit  of  the  Laws,"  165-167.  (See 
Religion.) 

Clergy,  their  influence  in  a  state,  1361 

'37- 

Climate,  its  relation  with  law,  139-142. 

Code,  the  Civil,  owes  much  to  Mon- 
tesquieu, 189. 

Commerce,  Montesquieu's  history  ofi 
148,  149;  the  spirit  it  fosters,  152, 
'S3- 

Confiscation,  Montesquieu's  peremp- 
tory arguments  against,  132. 

"  Considerations  on  the  Causes  of  the 
Greatness  and  Decline  of  the  Ro- 
mans "  (published  1734),  62;  intro- 
duction of  the  scientific  conception 
of  history,  66,  67 ;  the  perfection  of 
the  style,  67,  68  ;  the  general  cor- 
rectness of  the  judgments,  68,  69 ; 
shortcomings,  69,  70 ;  Montesquieu's 
picture  of  the  world  at  the  time  of 
the  Roman  conquest,  70,  71  ;  analy- 
sis of  the  Roman  policy,  71,  72  ;  the 
Roman  genius  displayed  in  action, 
73~76;  the  most  eloquent  part  of 
the  book,  77;  the  decline  of  Rome, 
77,  78 ;  original  views  and  discover- 
ies, 78 ;  Byzantium,  79 ;  compari- 
son with  Voltaire's  "  Essay  on 
Manners,"  79. 

Constant,  Benjamin,  his  "  Reflections 
on  the  Constitution"  inspired  by 
Montesquieu,  193. 

Constitutional  history.    See  England. 

Coulanges,  Fustel  de,  his  "Ancient 
City,"  202. 

Cre'billon,  the  younger,  34. 

Crevier,  his  criticism  of  "The  Spirit 
of  the  Laws,"  171,  172. 


Criminal  law,  humanity  of  Montes- 
quieu's studies  of,  130,  131;  folly 
of  excessive  penalties,  131,  132 ; 
torture,  132 :  freedom  of  speech, 
133;  treason,  133;  sacrilege  and 
heresy,  133-135. 

Criticism,  its  true  function,  202. 

Cromwell,  Montesquieu's  familiarity 
with  his  time,  70. 


D' ALBMBBRT,  his  "  Eulogy  "of  Mon- 
tesquieu, 170;  his  "Analysis  of  the 
Spirit  of  the  Laws,"  170- 

D'Argenson,  his  opinion  of  the  "  Per- 
sian Letters,"  49;  his  prophecy  of 
the  Republic,  183,  184. 

Deffand,  Madame  du,  her  jest  at 
Montesquieu's  expense,  97. 

De  Lolme,  his  indebtedness  to  Mon- 
tesquieu for  his  work  on  the  Eng- 
lish constitution,  172,  173. 

Democracy,  Montesquieu's  conception 
of,  108-110;  founded  upon  virtue, 
no,  in;  causes  of  decay,  in,  112; 
Montesquieu's  democracy  some- 
what Utopian,  112 ;  at  least  not 
modern,  113;  permanent  character- 
istics, 113;  weighty  criticism  and 
counsel,  114,  115;  application  of 
Montesquieu's  principles  in  the 
American,  173;  attempt  of  the 
French  revolutionists  to  realize  the 
republic  that  Montesquieu  had  de- 
scribed, 183-185  ;  failure  of  Montes- 
quieu to  foresee  the  character  of  the 
present  French  Republic,  198.  199. 

Desmolets,  Father,  his  opinion  of  the 
"Persian  Letters,"  49. 

Desmoulins,  Camille,  his  indebtedness 
to  Montesquieu,  187. 

Despotism,  Montesquieu's  Oriental 
picture  of,  120-122. 

"  Dialogue  between  Sulla  and  Eu- 
crates,"  73-76. 

Diderot,  his  licentiousness,  22. 

Diplomacy,  Montesquieu  unsuited  to, 
57- 

Domat,  his  "Treatise  on  the  Laws," 
80,  84. 


Index. 


213 


Dubos,  the  Abbe",  his  "  Critical  His- 
tory of  the  Establishment  of  the 
French  Monarchy  in  Gaul,"  156; 
Montesquieu's  controversy  with 
him,  157,  158. 

Dupin,  Claude,  his  foolish  attack  upon 
Montesquieu,  164. 

Duval,  the  Abb^,  secretary  to  Montes- 
quieu, 48. 


ECONOMY,  Political,  Montesquieu's 
contributions  to,  148-154. 

Edict  of  Nantes,  Montesquieu  de- 
mands it,  135. 

Empire,  the  first.     See  Bonaparte. 

England,  Montesquieu's  sojourn  in, 
60;  his  use  of  her  history,  70;  his 
allusive  and  cautious  treatment  of 
her  constitution,  101,  102  ;  bold  de- 
scription of  her  commercial  spirit, 
103  ;  no  freedom  of  conscience  there 
in  Montesquieu's  time,  122,  123; 
paradox  touching  the  origin  of  her 
constitution,  124-126 ;  analysis  of 
the  constitution,  126,  127;  political 
virtue  of  the  English,  128 ;  defects 
of  their  system,  128  ;  their  energy  in 
opposition  to  foreign  aggression, 
128,  129  ;  their  public  debt  foreseen 
by  Montesquieu,  129;  his  influence 
upon  their  publicists.  172;  English 
constitutional  government  revealed 
to  Europe  by  Montesquieu,  201. 

English,  the.     See  England. 

Expositions,  universal,  did  Montes- 
quieu suggest  them?  153. 


FEUDAL  laws,  Montesquieu's  theory 
of,  155-161. 

Filangieri,  imitated  and  endeavored  to 
surpass  Montesquieu,  170. 

Fleury,  Cardinal,  his  scruples  about 
admitting  Montesquieu  to  the  Acad- 
emy, 55. 

Fontenelle,  his  licentiousness,  22. 

France.  See  Democracy,  Monarchy, 
Revolution. 

Frederick  the  Great,  freedom  of  con- 


science under,  123 ;  his  use  of 
Montesquieu's  works,  168 ;  on  his- 
toric causes,  206. 

Freedom  of  speech.  See  Freedom  of 
thought. 

Freedom  of  thought  in  France,  3 1 ; 
Montesquieu  lays  down  the  true 
principles  of,  132,  133. 

Freeman,  E.  A.,  on  origin  of  English 
constitution,  125. 

Free-trade  and  protection,  Montes- 
quieu's solution  of  the  problem,  150, 
151. 

Funck-Brentano,his  "  Civilization  and 
its  Laws, "  302. 


GAMBLING,  commercial,  Montes- 
quieu's reflections  upon,  150. 

Germany,  Montesquieu's  attitude 
toward,  58;  his  influence  in,  201. 

Gneist,  on  origin  of  English  constitu- 
tion, 125. 

Governments,  nature  and  classifica- 
tion of,  89,  go ;  proper  distribution 
of  powers  in,  123,  124  ;  the  ideal 
French  government,  174,  175  :  op- 
timism essential  in  the  science  of 
government,  204. 

Guizot,  on  origin  of  English  constitu- 
tion, 125  ;  an  independent  disciple 
of  Mentesquieu,  196,  197  ;  his  influ- 
ence compared  with  Tocqueville's, 
200. 


Habeas  corpus,  Montesquieu's  ap- 
proval of  the,  132. 

Hamilton's  "  Tales,"  the  "  Persian 
Letters  "  compared  to,  34. 

Happiness,  Montesquieu's  remark 
upon,  26. 

Helvetius,  his  criticism  of  "The 
Spirit  of  the  Laws,"  163,  164. 

Heresy,  Montesquieu  on  the  suppres- 
sion of,  1 33  et  seq. 

History,  Montesquieu  founder  of  the 
scientific  treatment  of,  160,  161  ;  his 
successors,  196,  197,  199,  200 ; 
chance  in,  204-206 ;  laws  of,  206-208. 


2I4 


Index. 


Hobbes,  his  materialism  rejected  by 
Montesquieu,  84. 

Hospitals  and  Workhouses,  Montes- 
quieu's chapter  on,  153,  154. 

INQUISITORS  of  Spain  and  Portugal, 
Montesquieu's  "very  humble  re- 
monstrance to,"  134,  135. 

International  law,  Montesquieu's  an- 
alysis of,  144-148. 

JANET,   Paul,  his  fruitful  criticism  of 

Montesquieu,  203. 
Jansenists,   their  attack  upon  "  The 

Spirit  of  the  Laws,"  166,  167. 
Japan,  criticism  of  France  under  the 

name  of,  135. 
Jesuits,  their  attack  upon  "The  Spirit 

of  the  Laws,'*  165,  166. 
Justinian,  compared  to  Louis  XIV., 

79- 

LABOULAYE,  his  great  edition  of  Mon- 
tesquieu, 203. 

La  Brede,  Castle  of,  9. 

LaBruyere,  Montesquieu's  resentment 
against  the  court  like  his,  25 ; 
Montesquieu's  style  less  elaborate, 
36. 

Larroqne,  Tamizey  de,  his  strictures 
on  Vian's  "  History  of  Montes- 
quieu," 202. 

Law,  definition  of,  86 ;  humanity  of 
Montesquieu's  principles  of  criminal 
law,  130  et  seq.  (see  criminal  law); 
its  relation  with  climate,  139-142; 
international  law,  144-148  ;  theory 
of  feudal  laws,  155-161 ;  historical 
laws,  206-208. 

Lettres  de  cachet,  Montesquieu's  con- 
demnation of,  132. 

Liberty,  political,  defined  and  distin- 
guished, 122,  123 ;  exemplified  in 
England,  124.  (See  Freedom.) 

Licentiousness,  different  schools  of 
in  France,  22. 

Locke,  John,  read  in  England  by 
Montesquieu,  60. 

Louis  XIV.,  state  of  France  in  his 


last  years,  30,  31  ;  his  immorality, 
32  ;  Montesquieu's  denunciation  of 
him,  40  ;  Montesquieu's  hypocriti- 
cal praise  of  him,  55  ;  compared  to 
Justinian,  79 ;  Saint-Simon's  re- 
proach against  him,  136. 

Louis  XV.,  interposes  to  exclude 
Montesquieu  from  the  Academy, 
54- 

Louis  XVIII.,  his  perusal  and  use  of 
"  The  Spirit  of  the  Laws,"  194. 


MACCHIAVELLI,  contrasted  with  Mon- 
tesquieu, 64. 

Mallet,  welcomes  Montesquieu  to  the 
French  Academy,  55,  56. 

Marcus  Aurelius  and  the  Antonines, 
Montesquieu's  opinion  of,  20. 

Marivaux,  his  remark  upon  the  "  Per- 
sian Letters,"  49. 

Mommsen,  contrast  between  his  Sulla 
and  Montesquieu's,  73. 

Monarchy,  satirized  in  the  "  Persian 
Letters,"  41, 42  ;  Montesquieu's  pre- 
dilection for,  117;  the  monarch  the 
source  of  power,  117;  the  estates, 
118;  honor  the  essential  principle 
of,  nS,  119;  causes  of  decline,  119, 
120  (and  see  Despotism) ;  its  feudal 
honor  inconsistent  with  the  com- 
mercial spirit,  149,  150;  the  true 
wealth  of  such  a  state,  151  ;  its 
feudal  origin,  154,  155;  France 
nearer  the  Rome  of  Caesar  than  the 
England  of  Cromwell,  174;  ideal 
French  monarchy,  174,  175 ;  cor- 
ruption of  the  real  French  mon- 
archy, 175-177  ;  Montesquieu's  ideal 
shattered  by  the  Revolution,  180. 
(See  Restoration.) 

Montaigne,  influence  upon  Montes- 
quieu. 15,  16  ;  his  essay  "  Of  Cus- 
tom," 81 ;  his  ironical  religious  sub- 
terfuge, 100 ;  his  position  relatively 
to  Pascal  and  Montesquieu,  208. 

Montesquieu,  Charles  Louis  de  Secon- 
dat,  Baron  de  La  Brede  et  de  (1689- 
1755),  his  family,  8;  birth,  9;  child- 
hood and  education,  9,  10  ;  early  in- 


Index. 


credulity,  10  ;  marriage,  n  ;  Chief- 
Justice  of  the  Court  of  Bordeaux, 
ii ;  contempt  for  the  legal  profes- 
sion, 12  ;  fondness  for  society,  12  ; 
scientific  studies,  12-14  ;  his  private 
life  of  no  interest,  14 ;  personal  ap- 
pearance, 14  ;  his  Gascon  character, 
15;  fondness  for  Montaigne,  15; 
method  of  study  and  work,  15,  16; 
a  connected  thinker,  16,  17  ;  his  in- 
dependence, 17  ;  ultimate  respect 
for  religion,  18;  his  political  and 
historical  estimate  of  religion,  18- 
20 ;  humanity  without  charity,  20 ; 
his  diffidence,  21  ;  attachments  for 
women,  21,  22;  the  occasional  fri- 
volity of  his  tone,  22  ;  contrast  be- 
tween his  license  and  that  of  the 
naturalistic  school,  22,  23  ;  his  pride 
of  descent,  23  ;  haughty  republican 
spirit,  24  ;  civic  virtue,  24,  25  ;  re- 
jected by  the  court,  25 ;  his  real 
modesty,  25  :  his  every-day  wit,  25, 
26;  his  happy  disposition,  26;  his 
Stoicism,  27  ;  a  great  literary  artist, 
27,  28  ;  the  admirable  balance  of  his 
faculties,  28,  29  ;  his  character  as 
manifested  in  the  "  Persian  Let- 
ters," 33 ;  anticipates  and  equals 
Voltaire's  religious  satire,  43 ;  his 
toleration,  44 ;  not  only  preaches 
but  practises  toleration,  48 ;  his  in- 
tercourse with  the  fashionable  world, 
50;  elected  to  the  Academy  and 
thrown  out  by  the  king,  54 ;  final 
election,  55  ;  not  at  ease  there,  56 ; 
begins  his  travels,  56 ;  wishes  to 
enter  the  diplomatic  corps,  56,  57 ; 
a  citizen  of  the  world,  57,  58 ;  Ven- 
ice and  Italy,  59 ;  goes  to  England 
with  Chesterfield,  60 ;  summary  of 
his  travels,  60,  61 ;  filled  with  the 
spirit  of  Rome,  61,  62  ;  cause  of 
Rome's  attraction  for  him,  63 ;  his 
predecessors  in  this  study,  63-66 ; 
his  conception  of  history  contrasted 
with  Bossuet's,  66  ;  his  conception 
scientific,  67  ;  perfection  of  the  style 
of  the  "Considerations,"  67,  68; 
correctness  of  the  judgments,  68,  69 ; 


his  ignorance  of  archseology,  and  of 
the  social  questions  in  Rome,  69, 
70 ;  his  masterly  picture  of  the 
world  at  the  time  of  the  Roman 
conquest,  70,  71 ;  his  "  Sulla  and 
Eucrates,"  73-76;  his  chapters  on 
Byzantium  compared  with  Vol- 
taire's "  Essay  on  Manners,"  79  ; 
begins  his  great  work  at  the  age  of 
forty,  So;  compared  with  Montaigne 
and  Pascal,  81,  82 ;  his  motive  phil- 
anthropic as  well  as  scientific,  82, 
83 ;  groping  for  the  light,  84-87 ; 
reaches  the  light  (about  1729),  87; 
his  fundamental  principles,  88-91  ; 
his  vast  task  begins  to  weary  him 
(about  1745),  93  ;  the  artist  as  exact- 
ing as  the  thinker,  94,  95  ;  mode  of 
composition,  contrasted  with  that  of 
Tocqueville  and  Buffon,  96,  97 ; 
artifice,  evasion,  subterfuge,  98- 
102 ;  artistic  coquetry,  103,  104 ; 
genius  for  generalization,  104,  105  ; 
his  work  classic,  its  reality,  106, 
107;  his  title  to  the  gratitude  of 
humanity  for  his  treatment  of  the 
criminal  laws,  130  et  seq. ;  his  bold- 
ness and  freedom  in  these  chapters, 
137  ;  his  interest  in  feudal  law,  155, 
156 ;  his  German  descent  and  Ro- 
man spirit,  157;  the  founder  of  a 
science  of  history,  160,  161  ;  his 
opinion  of  Voltaire,  165 ;  his  last 
years,  168,  169  ;  bibliography,  202  ; 
extended  and  frequent  criticism  of 
him  by  Sainte-Beuve,  203-205  ;  the 
objections  answered,  205-208 ;  his 
representative  position,  208,  209. 

NAPOLEON.    See  Bonaparte. 

PANDECTS  (the),  Montesquieu's  debt 
to,  78. 

Pascal,  his  wager,  19 ;  his  opposition 
to  Montaigne,  81,  82  ;  his  omni- 
bus, 153;  his  disbelief  in  historic 
laws,  205  ;  his  position  relatively  to 
Montaigne  and  Montesquieu,  208. 

Penal  laws,  folly  of  excessive,  130-135. 


2l6 


Index. 


Persecution,  religious,  133-135. 

"Persian  Letters,"  their  revolution- 
ary tendency,  7,  8 ;  the  freedom  of 
thought  current  in  France  at  the 
time  of  their  appearance  (1721),  30- 

33  ;  their  aim  and  conception,  33, 

34  ;   fanciful  and  licentious  details 
of  Persian  manners,  34,  35  ;  admi- 
rable style  of  the  book,  36 ;  delinea- 
tion of  character,  37  ;   the  dandy, 
37,  38  ;  the  universal  oracle,  38, 39 ; 
pictures  of  the  depravity  of  French 
society)  39;    the   lords   the   king's 
lackeys,  40,  41 ;   the  social  system 
rotten,  the  people  sound,  41  ;  the 
monarchy  contrasted  with  the  re- 
public, 42 ;  freedom  of  speech  about 
religion,  43,  44  ;  tolerance,  44  ;  the 
increasingly    serious    tone    of    the 
book,  44  ;  revelation  of  the  author's 
deeper  political  ideas,  45  ;  the  Span- 
ish character,  45,  46 ;  the  author's 
temperance,  prudence,  and  caution, 
46 ;   anticipation  of  "  The  Spirit  of 
the  Laws,"  47  ;  anonymous  publi- 
cation at  Amsterdam,  48 ;  success 
of  the  book,  48,  40, ;  D'Argenson's 
remark,    49 ;    Marivaux's    remark, 
49  ;  quotation  from,  on  the  origin  of 
the  social  union,  86. 

Pitt,  William,   foreseen  by  Montes- 
quieu, 129. 
Poland,  causes  of  its  downfall,  115- 

"7: 

Political  Economy,  Montesquieu's 
contributions  to,  148-154. 

Politics,  Montesquieu's  influence  in 
French.  See  Bonaparte,  Restora- 
tion, Revolution. 

Pompey,  Montesquieu's  estimate  of, 
76. 

Portalis,  inspired  by  Montesquieu  in 
drawing  up  the  Civil  Code,  189. 

Protection  and  free-trade,  Montes- 
quieu's solution  of  the  problem, 
150,  151. 

Prussian  Code  of  1792,  Montesquieu's 
influence  upon,  171. 

Public  debt  (the  English),  foreseen 
by  Montesquieu,  129. 


READING,  Montesquieu's  delight  in, 
26. 

Religion,  Montesquieu's  attitude 
toward  it,  18,  19 ;  treatment  of  it 
in  "The  Spirit  of  the  Laws,"  99- 
101  (see  Christianity) ;  persecution 
on  account  of  it,  133  et  seq. 

Republic.  See  Democracy,  United 
States. 

Republicanism,  character  of  Montes- 
quieu's, 24. 

Restoration  (of  monarchy  in  1814), 
Montesquieu's  spirit  abroad  in  its 
politics,  193-196 ;  failure  of  his  dis- 
ciples in,  198. 

Revolution,  the  French,  Montesquieu 
a  precursor  of,  178 ;  Montesquieu 
furnished  quotations  for  the  revolu- 
tionists, 179;  what  the  different  es- 
tates owed  Montesquieu,  179,  180; 
the  two  classes  of  Montesquieu's 
followers,  180,  181 ;  how  Montes- 
quieu was  converted  into  the  prophet 
of  the  Revolution,  182,  183  ;  Montes- 
quieu's antique  conception  of  the 
republic  adopted  by  the  revolution- 
ists, 183-185 ;  their  mistaken  inter- 
pretations of  Montesquieu's  theory, 
185  ;  their  reductio  ad  terrorcm  of 
his  maxims,  185-187  :  their  impor- 
tant oversights,  187,  188  ;  the  party 
of  moderation  based  upon  Montes- 
quieu, iS8. 

Robespierre,  his  great  maxim  de- 
rived from  Montesquieu,  186. 

Romantic  School  (the),  its  licentious- 
ness, 22. 

Rome,  its  attraction  for  Montesquieu, 
61,  63  ;  its  policy  of  conquest  com- 
pared with  Bonaparte's,  190-192. 
(See  "  Considerations.") 

Rousseau,  J.  J.,  his  licentiousness,  22. 

Russia,  Montesquieu's  inadequate 
treatment  of,  120,  12 1 ;  source  of 
the  Czar's  power,  120,  121. 


SACRILEGE,  the   civil   law  cannot  re- 
press it,  133,  134. 
Sainte-Beuve,   quoted,  18 ;  his  criti- 


Index. 


217 


cisros  upon  Montesquieu  mentioned, 
202  ;  the  same  outlined,  203-205 ; 
the  same  answered,  205-209. 

Saint-fivremoud,  his  study  of  the 
Roman  character,  64. 

Saint-Simon,  on  the  state  of  France 
after  Louis  XIV.,  30;  his  reproach 
of  Louis  XIV.,  136. 

Shakespeare,  his  conception  of  Caesar 
like  Montesquieu's,  75. 

Sieyes,  the  political  antipode  of  Mon- 
tesquieu, 181,  182;  his  rational 
mechanism  of  government  aban- 
doned through  the  influence  of 
Montesquieu  and  Tocqueville,  200. 

Slavery,  Montesquieu's  views  of,  143, 
144. 

Smith,  Adam,  anticipated  by  Montes- 
quieu, 148. 

Socialism,  Montesquieu's  views  touch- 
ing, 153,  154. 

Society,  origin  of,  85,  86 ;  chance  ver- 
sus law  in,  204-208. 

Spaniards,  character  of  the,  45,  46. 

Speculation,  commercial,  Montes- 
quieu's reflections  upon,  150. 

"  Spirit  of  the  Laws,  The,"  antici- 
pated in  the  "  Persian  Letters,"  44, 
45,  47;  author's  aim,  82,  83  ;  vast- 
ness  of  the  materials,  84  :  the  author 
inferior  to  Buffon  in  knowledge  of 
anthropology,  85,  86 ;  conception 
of  law,  86,  87 ;  the  real  basis  of 
law,  88,  89 ;  nature  and  principle  of 
governments,  89,  90 ;  political  and 
social  laws,  91  ;  subordinate  laws, 
91,  92  ;  want  of  cohesion  in  the  lat- 
ter part  of  the  work,  92,  93;  its 
artistic  character,  93-95  ;  mode  of 
composition,  95,  96 ;  subdivision, 
conciseness,  wit,  97,  98 ;  artifice  as 
well  as  art,  98 ;  evasions  and  sub- 
terfuge touching  religion,  98-101 ; 
touching  politics,  101,  102 ;  weak- 
ness and  strength  of  generalization, 
103-105 ;  a  classic,  based  upon  real- 
ity, 106,  107 ;  treatment  of  dem- 
ocratic government,  108-115';  of 
aristocracy,  115-117;  of  monarchy, 
117-119;  of  despotism,  119-122;  of 


political  liberty  by  distribution  of 
power,  122-124 :  °f  the  English 
constitution,  124-129;  of  taxation, 
130 ;  of  the  abuse  of  criminal  law, 
13<>-i33  ;  of  religious  persecution, 
133-135;  of  religious  toleration,  135, 
136  ;  of  the  influence  of  the  clergy, 
'S^i  137 ;  an  offensive  digression, 
138;  of  climate  and  law,  139-142; 
civil  laws,  142,  143 ;  of  slavery,  143, 
144;  international  law,  144-148; 
history  of  commerce,  148,  149;  the- 
ory of  trade,  149,  150;  tariffs  and 
commercial  treaties,  150-152  ;  pub- 
lication of  the  work  at  Geneva 
(Nov.  1748),  162 ;  its  reception,  162  ; 
Helvetius'  criticism  of  it,  163,  164  ; 
Dupin's  attack,  164 ;  Voltaire's  atti- 
tude, 165;  clerical  attacks,  165-167; 
Montesquieu's  "  Defence,"  167  ;  re- 
ception of  the  work  abroad,  168; 
its  influence  with  philosophers,  169, 
170;  with  monarchs,.  170,  171;  in 
England,  172  ;  in  America,  173; 
upon  the  French  Revolution,  179- 
192 ;  the  two  chapters  on  England 
revealed  constitutional  government 
to  Europe,  201 ;  Tracy's  "  Com- 
mentary," 202 ;  other  criticisms, 
202,  203  ;  the  objections  best  stated 
by  Sainte-Beuve,  203-205 ;  answered 
by  the  author,  205-209. 

Stae'l,  Madame  de,  inspired  by  Mon- 
tesquieu's conception  of  human 
progress,  197. 

Stein,  Baron  von,  his  statesmanship 
inspired  by  the  genius  of  Montes- 
quieu, 2OI. 

Sulla,  Mommsen's  picture  and  Mon- 
tesquieu's, 73  ;  his  gorged  ambition, 
74,  75- 

TAINE,  his  masterly  criticism  of  Mon- 
tesquieu, 203. 

Talleyrand,  profoundly  imbued  with 
the  spirit  of  Montesquieu,  194-196. 

Taxation,  Montesquieu's  views  upon, 
130  ;  his  celebrated  definition,  130. 

Tele'maque,  Montesquieu's  admiration 
for,  27. 


218 


Index. 


"Temple  of  Gnidos.  The,"  its  arti- 
ficial character,  51  ;  its  occasional 
grace,  51-53  ;  suggestive  of  Andr£ 
Che'nier,  53  ;  publication,  54. 

Thoyras,  Rapin  de,  his  description  of 
the  English  constitution,  60. 

Tocqueville,  A.  de,  contrasted  with 
Montesquieu,  96 ;  cited,  154 ;  a 
great  continuer  of  the  work  of 
Montesquieu,  199  :  his  intellectual 
character  and  influence,  199,  200. 

Toleration  in  religion,  Montesquieu's, 
44,  48  ;  counsels  of  "  The  Spirit  of 
the  Laws,"  135-137- 

Torture,  Montesquieu's  opposition  to, 
132. 

Tourneux,  his  researches  concerning 
Montesquieu,  202. 

Tracy,  Destutt  de,  his  narrow  criticism 
of  Montesquieu,  202. 

Treason,  abuse  of  the  charge  of,  133. 

Turenne,  Montesquieu's  opinion  of, 
24. 

Turgot,  Montesquieu  quoted  against 
his  reforms,  177. 

UNITED  STATES  (the),  slavery  in,  143, 
144  ;  the  commercial  spirit  in,  152, 
153  ;  Montesquieu's  influence  upon 
the  founders  of,  173,  174  ;  Tocque- 
ville seeks  here  the  instruction 
Montesquieu  sought  in  England, 
199. 

VENICE,  visited  by  Montesquieu,  59  ; 
his  abrupt  departure,  59  ;  causes  of 
its  downfall,  115-117. 


Vergennes,  his  foreign  policy  based 
upon  Montesquieu,  177. 

Vian,  his  "  History  of  Montesquieu," 
202. 

Vienna,  visited  by  Montesquieu,  56. 

Villemain,  his  liberal  defence  of  Mon- 
tesquieu, 202  ;  quoted,  208. 

Voltaire,  his  licentiousness,  22  ;  his 
polemics  anticipated  and  equalled 
by  Montesquieu,  43  ;  his  "  Essay 
on  Manners "  compared  with  part 
of  Montesquieu's  "Considerations," 
79;  his  professional  jealousy  of 
Montesquieu,  97  ;  compares  Mon- 
tesquieu to  Paul  Veronese,  103 ; 
Montesquieu's  superiority  to  him  in 
the  treatment  of  religion,  137  ; 
quoted,  139  ;  his  "  Essay  on  Man- 
ners "  compared  with  Montes- 
quieu's chapters  on  the  Civil  Laws, 
142,  143  ;  on  international  law,  144, 
145  ;  his  attacks  upon  Montesquieu, 
164,  165 ;  duped  by  Frederick  the 
Great,  206. 

Vuitry,  his  opinion  touching  the  Mon- 
tesquieu-Dubos  dispute,  158,  159. 

WASHINGTON,  acquainted  with  "The 
Spirit  of  the  Laws,"  173. 

Women,  Montesquieu's  relations 
with,  his  wife,  1 1 ;  his  attachments, 
21 ;  his  cynical  opinion  of  female 
society,  22  ;  his  severity  in  the 
"  Persian  Letters  "  toward  women 
of  fashion,  39. 


A     000  1 1 1  307     5 


